1987 PLP 311 (SCMR)
Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 311 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 311 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 311 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 311 (SCMR) (Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Altaf Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 16‑11‑1985 in Case No. 5771846 of 1984). ‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil services‑‑Medical fitness and poor performance‑ Assessment by departmental authorities‑‑Value of such assessment as compared with medical opinion‑‑Adverse remarks in annual character roll‑‑ Expunction of‑‑Petitioner having suffered an attack of right hemiplegia, his overall performance was considered poor and he was assessed mentally and physically below average‑‑Adverse remarks to that effect in his annual confidential report challenged on ground that two Medical Boards had found him entirely fit to resume duty‑‑Held: Departmental Authorities who had an occasion to watch his performance after attacks (of illness) were alone competent to assess his performance‑‑Reports to Medical Boards were entirely irrelevant in adjudging quality of his work‑‑No substantial question of law arising, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑11‑1985 of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the refusal of the departmental authorities to expunge adverse remarks given to him for the year 1983.
2. The petitioner was a Superintending Engineer serving in the Public Health Engineering Department. In September 1980 he had an attack of right hemiplegia. He remained on leave till June 1981. After he had been declared physically fit by the Medical Board he resumed his duties. While recording his A.C.R. for the year 1983 the Chief Engineer observed:‑ "Due to few paralysis attacks the health of the officer particularly the mental health has effected very adversely. His thinking power is zero. He cannot speak well, think well, acts well. Mentally and physically below average which can be judged from the A.C.Rs. written by him and interview if granted by Government. Further:‑ His overall performance was poor. He cannot write even. It will be in his own interest as well as of the department if he is retired honorably. He is a burden to the department." The countersigning authority agreed with the observations of the Chief Engineer and added:‑ "I agree with the C.E's. report. Hardly marks the grade." These remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner. He made a representation for their expunction which was rejected. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any success He now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the tribunal.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that two Medical Boards nave found him entirely fit to resume duty and as such the observations of the Chief Engineer and the countersigning authority with regard to his mental and physical health are without any foundation. It is difficult to accept this contention. The Medical Boards which were constituted to examine him were entirely concerned with the question whether he was fit to resume duty. They did not and could not possibly comment upon his performance as Superintending Engineer. On the other hand, the departmental authorities who had an occasion to watch his performance after the attacks were alone competent to assess his performance. The reports of the Medical Boards are entirely irrelevant in adjudging the, quality of his work. No substantial question of law arises in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.