1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed ZAMAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTOCK and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | Syed ZAMAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTOCK and another |
| 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 Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and 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)) (Syed ZAMAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTOCK and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia-ul-Hassan for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil servant, who was Sub-Inspector, C.I.A. Staff, was given a `C' report by Superintendent of Police in his Annual Confidential Report for the period he remained posted under him
Reporting officer also observed that civil servant was a lethargic officer who knew very little about his job
Civil servant had contended that higher officer under whom he served thereafter had given him `A' class report and that prior to period for which adverse remarks were given against him, he had worked very efficiently and was awarded commendation certificates for good work and cash award as well
Reporting Officer had given adverse remarks on basis of civil servant's actual performance during period of his posting under reporting officer for which reporting officer himself was a witness
Held, for purposes of evaluating performance of civil servant during that time span; for which his report was made his conduct or performance during periods preceding that period and one following it were not relevant
During period in question, civil servant admittedly having failed to show any efficiency in performance of his duty, orders of Authorities in respect of adverse remarks against civil servant, could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTOCK and another Appeal No. 937/785 of 1987, decided on 7th April, 1990.
Civil servant, who was Sub-Inspector, C.I.A. Staff, was given a `C' report by Superintendent of Police in his Annual Confidential Report for the period he remained posted under him
Reporting officer also observed that civil servant was a lethargic officer who knew very little about his job
Civil servant had contended that higher officer under whom he served thereafter had given him `A' class report and that prior to period for which adverse remarks were given against him, he had worked very efficiently and was awarded commendation certificates for good work and cash award as well
Reporting Officer had given adverse remarks on basis of civil servant's actual performance during period of his posting under reporting officer for which reporting officer himself was a witness
Held, for purposes of evaluating performance of civil servant during that time span; for which his report was made his conduct or performance during periods preceding that period and one following it were not relevant
During period in question, civil servant admittedly having failed to show any efficiency in performance of his duty, orders of Authorities in respect of adverse remarks against civil servant, could not be interfered with. Zia-ul-Hassan for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th March, 1990.