1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ISRAR AHMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Parvez Khan, Chairman and |
| Parties | ISRAR AHMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Parvez Khan, Chairman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ISRAR AHMAD KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Appellant.
- Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Annual Confidential Report--Adverse remarks --Justification--Civil servant against whom adverse remarks are to be passed must be aware as to where the fault lies in order to improve himself before he gets such remarks--Pen-picture about civil servant was confusing where, on the one hand it was opined that speaking orders were written and on the other it was maintained that detailed orders were missing--Communication of adverse remarks to civil servants was badly barred by time--Adverse remarks, therefore, would have no effect--Appeal against adverse remarks was accepted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Ouality and output of work ... Below average (2) Ability to plan, organise and supervise work . ... Below average (3) Preservance and devotion to duty. ... Below average (4) Sense of responsibility (General) ... Below average (5) Disposal of cases. ... Below average (6) Observance of security ... Inclined to be measures. (7) Touring. ... Inadequate or unsystematic. In the pen-picture it was further added that "his work as Magistrate left much to be desired. Even today there are Court problems, where speaking orders were issued but detailed orders are missing", All the above lapses and short comings would certainly invite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings/warnings/reminders to the appellant but the record is silent about this fact. At least an officer must be aware as to where the fault lies in order to improve himself, before he gets the adverse remarks. This was not done in the present case. Moreover, the second para of the pen-picture is somewhat not understandable and is confused. On the one hand it was opined that the speaking orders were written and on the other hand it was maintained that the detailed orders are missing. It is quite possible that a judgment or an order may be speaking but it may be very short. But a lengthy order can always not be a speaking order. Over and above all not the present appeal but the communication of the adverse remarks to the appellant was badly barred by time. Under the existing rules, reasonable time has been prescribed for the communication of the adverse remarks to a Government servant. For this purpose period has been taken to be the months of March or April are considered as the target period but in the instant case the adverse remarks, per admission of the respondents were conveyed to him on 29-10-1983. These were, therefore, of no effect. Viewed from every angle, the appeal succeeds and it is hereby decreed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. AA./105/Sr. N Appeal accepted.