1989SCMR693 (PLP)
NOOR AHMAD MIRZA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Services General Administration & Information Department — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR693 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid. JJ |
| Parties | NOOR AHMAD MIRZA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Services General Administration & Information Department — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR693 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR693 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR693 (PLP) (NOOR AHMAD MIRZA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Services General Administration & Information Department — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1988.
- Amjad Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-12-1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No.495/W7 of 1984).
Art.212(3)--Establishment Division's Memo. No. 9(4)/54-SEMI, dated 27-9-1954--Appeal against adverse remarks in annual confidential report was dismissed by Service Tribunal--Order impugned--Petitioner's plea was that under Government instructions adverse remarks could only be recorded in character roll of a civil servant where he had been awarded . punishment as a result of enquiries against him--Petitioner's pica that having been exonerated in enquiries against him, adverse remarks against him were in violation of instructions of Authority--Supreme Court called for a report from Authority on the subject.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the Commissioner. He challenged the same by an appeal to the Service Tribunal but having failed there he has now moved this Court, seeking leave to appeal. The learned Service Tribunal relied upon the comments submitted by the learned Commissioner while justifying his adverse opinion. The Commissioner, in his aforesaid comments, observed that the petitioner was facing an inquiry in connection with the attestation of a bogus and ante‑dated affidavit while he was posted as E.A.C. Lahore. He has also referred to a case in which a person had died since long but the appellant (in that case) advanced the date of death by one year from November, 1981 to December, 1980, with a view to favoring certain persons who had no genuine case. The Service Tribunal opined that in view of these concrete cases, which were cited by the learned Commissioner, the assessment made by him was justified. Mr. Amjad Ahmad has submitted before us that the petitioner was only facing an inquiry about the above two allegations but that he was ultimately exonerated in the inquiries conducted about them. He has placed on record copy of Order No.SO(C)11‑130/84 dated 15‑5‑1985 and the copy of Order No.SO(C)11‑280/82 dated 2970‑1985 which are to the effect that the charges were not established. He has also drawn our, attention to the instructions‑ of the Establishment Division contained in Memo. No.9(4)/54‑SE=III, dated‑27‑9‑1954 on the subject of "Procedure for making entries of punishment orders in confidential reports" wherein it )s stated that in cases where departmental inquiries are pending it is only after the order awarding punishment has been made that an adverse remark should be recorded in the character roll of the officer concerned. The submission of the learned counsel is that in this case the A above instruction was violated. He further submitted that if the above instruction had been observed the adverse entries would not have been recorded since the petitioner was ultimately exonerated in the departmental inquiries. Call for a report from the respondent on these submissions. The respondent is directed to submit the report within six weeks. A.A./N‑121/S Order accordingly.