1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHALID MAHMOOD AHMAD Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID MAHMOOD AHMAD Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHALID MAHMOOD AHMAD Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 30-7-1995, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 212(R) of 1995).
R. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report of civil servant
Departmental appeal and service appeal of civil servant against adverse remarks were dismissed-- Validity
Leave to appeal was granted to consider; whether Service Tribunal had not dealt with disputed period of Annual Confidential Reports and was influenced in its judgment by extraneous consideration of reversion of petitioner during his probationary period, on basis that he had not challenged his reversion, whereas, in fact, he had challenged his reversion in Supreme Court by filing petition for leave to appeal, which was dismissed; and that in view of facts stated herein, judgment of Service Tribunal was erroneous and not sustainable in law. 1991 SCMR 2330 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.
Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment, dated 30-7-1995, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No.212(R). of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was communicated adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the period from 10-2-1994 to 22-12-1994, vide a letter dated 6-3-1994 issued by the G.H.Q. Rawalpindi. The petitioner filed departmental appeal against the said remarks, but the competent Authority dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons. He thereafter, filed service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Service Tribunal observed that:- (i) the petitioner had been earlier reverted from the post of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer to the post of G-I for unsatisfactory record, and the petitioner had not challenged such reversion. (ii) the petitioner had mixed record, that in certain A.C.Rs. he had been rated good and very good, and considered to be intelligent, hardworking, cooperative and tactful and well-conversant with rules and regulations; whereas in certain other A.C.Rs. he had been rated as average, in some even below average. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Service Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed without assigning reasons, in violation of law and the principles of natural justice. In support, learned counsel has relied on 1991 SCMR 2330. Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal has not dealt with the disputed period of A.C.Rs. and was influenced in its judgment by extraneous consideration of reversion of the petitioner during his probationary period, on the basis that he had not challenged his reversion, whereas, in fact, he had challenged his reversion in tire Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.180 of 1996, which was dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel further argued that in view of the above, the judgment of the Service Tribunal was erroneous and was not sustainable in law.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Leave is accordingly, granted. A. A./K-16/S Leave granted.