1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
RAJA SHAFQAT TANVIR Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | RAJA SHAFQAT TANVIR Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: 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 Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, 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)) (RAJA SHAFQAT TANVIR Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Tabassum Aftab AM for Appellant.
- Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Two different reports were made by two Senior Superintendents of Police against civil servant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police
No adverse entry was found in one report while in second several adverse remarks were recorded by recording officer
Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.-G.) without examining reports, countersigned same as countersigning officer and ordered that adverse remarks be conveyed to civil servant
As forwarding Agency having conveyed un-countersigned copy of adverse remarks to civil servant, civil servant preferred representation against adverse remarks before Deputy inspector-General of Police, who had already countersigned both reports
Deputy Inspector-General of Police without going through the record and ignoring the fact that he had already exercised his discretion as countersigning officer, accepted representation partly as Appellate Authority, but order accepting representation partly, passed by Deputy Inspector General, was rejected by Inspector-General
Order passed by Deputy Inspector-General, being without jurisdiction was nullity in the eye of law
Both orders passed-by Deputy Inspector-General and Inspector General respectively, were set aside with direction that both A.C.Rs of civil servant would be reconsidered by Deputy Inspector-General as countersigning officer.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAFFARABAD and another Service Appeal No.495 of 1990, decided on 26th December, 1991.
Two different reports were made by two Senior Superintendents of Police against civil servant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police
No adverse entry was found in one report while in second several adverse remarks were recorded by recording officer
Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.-G.) without examining reports, countersigned same as countersigning officer and ordered that adverse remarks be conveyed to civil servant
As forwarding Agency having conveyed un-countersigned copy of adverse remarks to civil servant, civil servant preferred representation against adverse remarks before Deputy inspector-General of Police, who had already countersigned both reports
Deputy Inspector-General of Police without going through the record and ignoring the fact that he had already exercised his discretion as countersigning officer, accepted representation partly as Appellate Authority, but order accepting representation partly, passed by Deputy Inspector General, was rejected by Inspector-General
Order passed by Deputy Inspector-General, being without jurisdiction was nullity in the eye of law
Both orders passed-by Deputy Inspector-General and Inspector General respectively, were set aside with direction that both A.C.Rs of civil servant would be reconsidered by Deputy Inspector-General as countersigning officer. M. Tabassum Aftab AM for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents.