1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NAWAB DIN Versus DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | NAWAB DIN Versus DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING |
| Primary Law | Civil services |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil services 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 Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NAWAB DIN Versus DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Remarks; "Needs tight control specially in Account matters; should work in a team more comfortably"; "should pay more attention to his duties", "should mould himself to work in a sense of team spirit more, comfortably" and "requires tight and close supervision specially in accounts matters", given in reports of civil servant on various dates were not adverse remarks but were advisory in nature and meant for his supervisory officers to have better supervision and control on him
Such remarks not being adverse remarks, appeal of civil servant was accepted with directions that said remarks against him should not be treated as adverse.
Judgment & Decree
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Appeal No. 972/511 of 1987, decided on 26th August, 1990.
Remarks; "Needs tight control specially in Account matters; should work in a team more comfortably"; "should pay more attention to his duties", "should mould himself to work in a sense of team spirit more, comfortably" and "requires tight and close supervision specially in accounts matters", given in reports of civil servant on various dates were not adverse remarks but were advisory in nature and meant for his supervisory officers to have better supervision and control on him
Such remarks not being adverse remarks, appeal of civil servant was accepted with directions that said remarks against him should not be treated as adverse. Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondent.