1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Qazi ALLAH DITTA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Qazi ALLAH DITTA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Qazi ALLAH DITTA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 12(ii)‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualify ing for pension‑Two out of three adverse entries in character roll expunged and washed‑Case, in circumstances, needed reappraisal at Departmental level‑‑Case, remanded by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1.974), S.4
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 2/421 of 1979, decided on 10th November, 1980. ‑‑‑ S. 12(ii)‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualify ing for pension‑Two out of three adverse entries in character roll expunged and washed‑Case, in circumstances, needed reappraisal at Departmental level‑‑Case, remanded by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1.974), S.4 In this cast the appellant assails the orders of his retirement by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura vide his letter dated 23rd July, 1978 and the order of .the Commissioner dated 4th November, 1978 rejecting his appeal. In this behalf the appellant stated that he was retired on 14th March, 1975 after completing 27 years, five months and 21 days service. On his appeal he was reinstated in service.
2. We have called for the record and heard the parties. The appellant had only two adverse reports for the years 1956 and 1961. In one report he was severely reprimanded for delaying two urgent communi cations and in the other case increment for two years was stopped. On appeal in the first case he was altogether exonerated and in the second case also his two increments were restored. The only remaining adverse report is for the year 1972 which reads as under: ‑ "There is nothing particular against the official. Of course there were complaints against the C. A. However no one came forward to substantiate any complaint."
3. The appellant contends that since his retirement has been ordered on the basis of accumulative effect therefore all the three adverse reports out of which two have been washed out, his case merits reconsideration by the Department. The Department did not dispute the facts stated above. In the circumstances we are of the view that the case needs reappraisal at the departmental level as the two adverse remarks have since been washed on and could not be taken into consideration. The case is accordingly remanded to the D. C., Sheikhupura for reconsideration in the light of our observations above.