1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SADIQUE Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQUE Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), (a) 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 Sindh bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid 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)) (MUHAMMAD SADIQUE Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh, for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Servant's departmental appeal against such remarks was dismissed
Adverse remarks against civil servant were shared by high officers of the Department who concurred with the views of Reporting Officer
Civil servant's target of attack was Reporting Officer against whom he levelled allegations of personal bias which remained unproved
Civil servant could not explain as to why high officers of the Department had endorsed adverse remarks given to him by the Reporting Officer
Officers occupying high positions in Department were least expected to support adverse report emanating from officer of lower level without applying their own mind particularly when they were aware that remarks they supported were capable of ruining future of civil servant
Corroboration of adverse remarks by high officers of the Department was, thus free from any taint.
S.4
Appeal against adverse remarks
Allegations of personal bias against Reporting Officer remaining unproved on record
Evidence sought to be produced against Reporting Officer was some hand written applications addressed to high officer
Such applications had come from custody of civil servant and not from the custody of officer to whom they were addressed; as such they were worthless having no evidentiary value
Record showed that civil servant had faced several departmental enquiries in some of which he had even been punished
No reason was thus, pointed out to interfere with adverse remarks in question. Zawar Hussain Shah, AA: G. for the Government
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil service
Civil Servant's departmental appeal against such remarks was dismissed
Adverse remarks against civil servant were shared by high officers of the Department who concurred with the views of Reporting Officer
Civil servant's target of attack was Reporting Officer against whom he levelled allegations of personal bias which remained unproved
Civil servant could not explain as to why high officers of the Department had endorsed adverse remarks given to him by the Reporting Officer
Officers occupying high positions in Department were least expected to support adverse report emanating from officer of lower level without applying their own mind particularly when they were aware that remarks they supported were capable of ruining future of civil servant
Corroboration of adverse remarks by high officers of the Department was, thus free from any taint. (b) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)
S.4
Appeal against adverse remarks
Allegations of personal bias against Reporting Officer remaining unproved on record
Evidence sought to be produced against Reporting Officer was some hand written applications addressed to high officer
Such applications had come from custody of civil servant and not from the custody of officer to whom they were addressed; as such they were worthless having no evidentiary value
Record showed that civil servant had faced several departmental enquiries in some of which he had even been punished
No reason was thus, pointed out to interfere with adverse remarks in question. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh, for Appellant. Zawar Hussain Shah, AA: G. for the Government Date of hearing: 14th March, 1991.