1989SCMR1413 (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFFAR HASHMI Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1413 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR HASHMI Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1413 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1413 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR1413 (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFFAR HASHMI Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 26‑5‑1984 in Appeal No.126(L) of 1981). ‑‑‑ Crossing of efficiency bar‑‑Annual Confidential Reports, measure to evaluate performance of a civil servant‑‑Crossing of efficiency bar is directly related to the performance of an individual and there is no better measure of judging and evaluating this performance except from the Annual Confidential Reports.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Abdul Ghaffar Hashmi who retired as Assistant Accounts Officer challenged the question of crossing of efficiency bar before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the relevant facts and service record of the petitioner declined the request of the petitioner as a result of which his appeal was dismissed on 26‑5‑1984. The petitioner has now filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by taking into consideration the annual confidential reports which were not part of A.C.R. dossier on the relevant date. He further submitted that the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. of the petitioner were result of mala fide of the reporting officer. The submission has no force. The Tribunal rightly observed, "It is all too well‑known that the crossing of efficiency bar is directly related to the performance of an individual. There is no better measure of judging and evaluating this performance except from the A.C.Rs.". The view taken by the Tribunal being in accordance with law and in the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance, we don't think the impugned judgment calls for any interference. Dismissed. M.B.A./A‑467/S Petition dismissed.