1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
JAVED NAZAR SIDDIQI Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | S.M. Ishaq and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members |
| Parties | JAVED NAZAR SIDDIQI Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT and another |
| Primary Law | (c) Civil service, (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Civil service, (b) Civil service, (a) 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)) (JAVED NAZAR SIDDIQI Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Saeed Akhtar with Abdul Hamid Khan, D.R. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Adverse remarks against civil servant admittedly pertained to a period much earlier to the year of report of such remarks
Such remarks which were absolutely irrelevant, must be expunged from report in interest of justice, being violative of instructions on the subject.
Reporting Officer in some parts of his report had rated civil servant as `good' in overall assessment and in some parts he was rated as `average'
Superior Reporting Officer did not differ with Reporting Officer with regard to parts in which civil servant was rated as `good', but regarding overall grading, assessed civil servant as `average'
Overall grading of `average' by superior Reporting Officer who otherwise was authorised to modify report of Reporting Officer, was in no manner inconsistent with assessment of Reporting Officer.
Countersigning Officer, under instructions was to underline in red ink remarks which in his opinion were adverse, but he had not underlined them as such
Compliance with instructions, though would have been advisable, countersigning officer's failure to do the needful alone, would not be sufficient to provide with a ground for expunction of remarks which could possibly be treated as adverse.
Judgment & Decree
Adverse remarks against civil servant admittedly pertained to a period much earlier to the year of report of such remarks
Such remarks which were absolutely irrelevant, must be expunged from report in interest of justice, being violative of instructions on the subject. (b) Civil service
Reporting Officer in some parts of his report had rated civil servant as `good' in overall assessment and in some parts he was rated as `average'
Superior Reporting Officer did not differ with Reporting Officer with regard to parts in which civil servant was rated as `good', but regarding overall grading, assessed civil servant as `average'
Overall grading of `average' by superior Reporting Officer who otherwise was authorised to modify report of Reporting Officer, was in no manner inconsistent with assessment of Reporting Officer. (c) Civil service
Countersigning Officer, under instructions was to underline in red ink remarks which in his opinion were adverse, but he had not underlined them as such
Compliance with instructions, though would have been advisable, countersigning officer's failure to do the needful alone, would not be sufficient to provide with a ground for expunction of remarks which could possibly be treated as adverse. M.S. Siddiqui for Appellant. Saeed Akhtar with Abdul Hamid Khan, D.R. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.