1989 PLP 1238 (SCMR)
Rana ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1238 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Rana ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1238 (SCMR) (Rana ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Niazi. Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 28th November, 1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No.614/67 of 1982). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.212 (3)‑‑Expunction of remarks from Annual Confidential Report‑ Petitioner, a Magistrate when District and Sessions Judge made remarks m his A.C.R. to the effect that the "forms wrong views and then persists in them; is not open to correction"‑‑Said remarks were communicated to the petitioner‑‑Service Tribunal on appeal, found that no exception could be taken to the positive statement made by the judicial Head of the District, that being an honest assessment of work of the petitioner, which came under review from time to time before the District and Sessions Judge‑‑Leave to appeal refused against the findings of Service Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a Magistrate posted in Faisalabad. In his annual confidential report for the period falling between 4‑7‑81 and 31‑12‑81 the District and Sessions Judge made the following remarks:‑ "Forms wrong views and then persists in them; is not open to correction." These remarks were communicated to the petitioner. He made a representation for expunction which was rejected by the Government. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but this too met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. While rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal observed: "In the present case, what we find is that the learned Sessions Judge besides making reference to the events of 1982, has reported that his assessment was based on various orders and judgments which came before him in appeals and revisions that he formed opinion that the appellant was formulating wrong views and then was persisting in the same. It would not be possible for us to disbelieve a positive statement made by the Judicial Head of a District, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to an honest assessment of work of the appellant which came under review from time to time before the learned Sessions Judge."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to accept his contention that the adverse remarks were entirely unfounded and the learned Tribunal erred in not expunging them. The petition is dismissed. M.BA./A‑497/S Petition dismissed.