1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Malik KHUDA BAKHSH AWAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | S.M. Ishaq and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members |
| Parties | Malik KHUDA BAKHSH AWAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil Service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: S.M. Ishaq and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Malik KHUDA BAKHSH AWAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.
- Manzoor Hussain District Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing. 5th December, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Instructions of Guide to Performance Evaluation, No.2.28
Confidential report was required to be written by an officer if period of report was three months or more than three months
Such period of three months under report or review, should be actual period of duty
If an officer either goes on training or was otherwise absent, for a specific period, that period of absence, whatever be its reason, should be excluded while computing minimum period of three months
Such instructions which had left little room for any doubt regarding fulfillment of condition of minimum period of three months, not being a mere formality, concerned officer's failure to comply with those instructions in making performance evaluation, would render confidential reports valueless
Where period under report admittedly was less than three months report and adverse remarks made by reporting and countersigning officers against civil servant were irrelevant and should not be treated as adverse
Countersigning officer according to instructions was to underline in red ink remarks which in his opinion were adverse, but he failed to comply with that instruction
Adverse remarks, in circumstances, made against Civil servant by reporting officer and countersigning officer, were not justified and were liable to be expunged from evaluation report of civil servant for disputed period.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 82(L) of 1990, decided on 12th December, 1991.
Instructions of Guide to Performance Evaluation, No.2.28
Confidential report was required to be written by an officer if period of report was three months or more than three months
Such period of three months under report or review, should be actual period of duty
If an officer either goes on training or was otherwise absent, for a specific period, that period of absence, whatever be its reason, should be excluded while computing minimum period of three months
Such instructions which had left little room for any doubt regarding fulfillment of condition of minimum period of three months, not being a mere formality, concerned officer's failure to comply with those instructions in making performance evaluation, would render confidential reports valueless
Where period under report admittedly was less than three months report and adverse remarks made by reporting and countersigning officers against civil servant were irrelevant and should not be treated as adverse
Countersigning officer according to instructions was to underline in red ink remarks which in his opinion were adverse, but he failed to comply with that instruction
Adverse remarks, in circumstances, made against Civil servant by reporting officer and countersigning officer, were not justified and were liable to be expunged from evaluation report of civil servant for disputed period. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant. Manzoor Hussain District Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondent No.