1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MOHAMMAD NASIM KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD NASIM KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARABAD 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 Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, 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)) (MOHAMMAD NASIM KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi for Appellant.
- Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Two different reports were made by two different reporting Officers in the same year against civil servant
No adverse remark was found against civil servant about his service career and his performance was recognised as satisfactory in the first report while in second report reporting officer had leveled serious allegations of corruption, misconduct and improper performance of his duty
When there were two different and contradictory reports about work and conduct of civil servant, countersigning officer, was required to accept one of the two reports as correct or alternatively in case he did not agree with both reports, he should have written his own remarks and assessment about civil servant, but countersigning officer, mechanically countersigned both the reports of reporting officers and result was that both remarks recorded by reporting officers, were rendered ineffective and unreliable for being contradictory
Report by Reporting Officer who had record adverse remaks against civil servant, would not be operative or accepted in favour of or against civil servant, unless remarks by one reporting officer were accepted and remarks of other reporting officer were rejected by countersigning officer.
Judgment & Decree
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others Service Appeal No.500 of 1990, decided on 12th December, 1991.
Two different reports were made by two different reporting Officers in the same year against civil servant
No adverse remark was found against civil servant about his service career and his performance was recognised as satisfactory in the first report while in second report reporting officer had leveled serious allegations of corruption, misconduct and improper performance of his duty
When there were two different and contradictory reports about work and conduct of civil servant, countersigning officer, was required to accept one of the two reports as correct or alternatively in case he did not agree with both reports, he should have written his own remarks and assessment about civil servant, but countersigning officer, mechanically countersigned both the reports of reporting officers and result was that both remarks recorded by reporting officers, were rendered ineffective and unreliable for being contradictory
Report by Reporting Officer who had record adverse remaks against civil servant, would not be operative or accepted in favour of or against civil servant, unless remarks by one reporting officer were accepted and remarks of other reporting officer were rejected by countersigning officer. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents.