PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another Versus SARDAR NOOR ILAHI KHAN LEGHARI and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Appeal No.70 of 1987, decided on 7th October, 1990.
Honorable Judges
Shafiur Rahman, S. Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Shafiur Rahman, S. Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Parties PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another Versus SARDAR NOOR ILAHI KHAN LEGHARI and another
Primary Law (b) Civil service, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) 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 Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, S. Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another Versus SARDAR NOOR ILAHI KHAN LEGHARI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Civil service (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) (c) Civil service

Representation

  • Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Asst. A.-G. Punjab and Rao M. Yousuf Khan Advocate on-Record for Appellants.
  • Fazal Elahi Siddiqui Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi Exuviate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
  • Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
  • Date of hearing: 7th October, 1990.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-5-1986 passed in Appeal NO-308 (R) of 1985).

Art. 212(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Federal Service Tribunal was within its jurisdiction in expunging adverse remarks recorded by supervisory officer in character roll of civil servant for specific year.

Annual Confidential Report

Adverse remarks

Remark, "Average" in respect of overall performance, could not be considered to be adverse

No representation or appeal would lie before Service Tribunal against remark, "average"

Service Tribunal, thus, went beyond its jurisdiction in expunging remarks "average" from annual confidential report of civil servant. Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Ahmad Kamaluddin 1981 SCMR 392 ref.

Annual confidential report

Adverse remarks

Remarks of higher officer would prevail over that of a subordinate

Service Tribunal, by giving precedence to opinion of Inspector-General, Police over opinion of Chief Secretary, simply because former dealt with civil servant directly, had violated established principle rooted in system of hierarchical bureaucracy

Chief Secretary was free to record his own opinion and impression and unless it was manifestly untenable, same could not be substituted by opinion formed by Service Tribunal from limited material that was before it during hearing of appeal--Judgment of Service Tribunal was not sustainable in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Art. 212(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Federal Service Tribunal was within its jurisdiction in expunging adverse remarks recorded by supervisory officer in character roll of civil servant for specific year. (b) Civil service

Annual Confidential Report

Adverse remarks

Remark, "Average" in respect of overall performance, could not be considered to be adverse

No representation or appeal would lie before Service Tribunal against remark, "average"

Service Tribunal, thus, went beyond its jurisdiction in expunging remarks "average" from annual confidential report of civil servant. Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Ahmad Kamaluddin 1981 SCMR 392 ref. (c) Civil service

Annual confidential report

Adverse remarks

Remarks of higher officer would prevail over that of a subordinate

Service Tribunal, by giving precedence to opinion of Inspector-General, Police over opinion of Chief Secretary, simply because former dealt with civil servant directly, had violated established principle rooted in system of hierarchical bureaucracy

Chief Secretary was free to record his own opinion and impression and unless it was manifestly untenable, same could not be substituted by opinion formed by Service Tribunal from limited material that was before it during hearing of appeal--Judgment of Service Tribunal was not sustainable in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Asst. A.-G. Punjab and Rao M. Yousuf Khan Advocate on-Record for Appellants. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi Exuviate-on-Record for Respondent No.1. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1990.