P L D (Rev (PLP)
Sh. ABDUL BASHIR‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | Sh. ABDUL BASHIR‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service appeal |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service appeal as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (Sh. ABDUL BASHIR‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑‑This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner Lahore Division dated the 9th November 1950, by which he withheld the increment of Sh. Abdul Bashir for a period of one year without accumula tive effect. The appellant in person and Mr. J. M. Payne for the Crown present and heard. In his brief arguments the appellant pointed out , the defects in the procedure adopted in this case i. e. that every appeal or application for revision preferred under these rules shall contain all material statements and arguments relied on by the appellant or applicant shall contain no disrespectful or improper language,, and shall be complete in itself. Every such appeal or application for revision shall be submitted through the head of the office to which the appe4lant or applicant belongs or belonged and through the authority from whose order the appeal or application for revision is preferred (rule 14.20 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab) Volume I, Part I, Main Rules, and also the ommission of a mandatory provision of rule 2.19 of the Punjab Excise Manual, Volume III whereby an enquiry is to be made before an order withholding the increment of an official is made. My attention was also drawn to the concluding sentence of the Chief Secretary to Government West Punjab's Letter No. 661‑G‑49/10127, dated the 12th February, 1949, to all Heads of Departments Registrar, High Court of Judicature etc., which is to the effect that "you are, therefore, requested to exercise a careful watch over the work of the staff so that if in any case it is considered that the outturn of the individual is not commensurate with his pay, either quantitatively or qualitatively, it should be possible for you to withhold his increment (to serve him with a charge‑sheet requiring him to show cause why his increments should not be withheld)". The representative of the Excise and Taxation Depart ment conceded the points raised by the appellant and pointed out the procedural defects committed in the case and suggested its remand to the learned Commissioner which is hereby accepted. I accordingly remand this case to the learned Commissioner who, after observing the necessary formalities, should pass fresh orders in this case consistent with the rules. A. H.