SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 1417 (SCMR)

ABDUR RASHID Petitioner Versus C.S.C. and another Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.852 of 1984, decided on 1st March, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 1417 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Parties ABDUR RASHID Petitioner Versus C.S.C. and another Respondents
Primary Law Civil service‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1417 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1417 (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 1417 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID Petitioner Versus C.S.C. and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service‑‑

Representation

  • Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
  • We have heard learned counsel for petitioner who was unable to assail the finding of the Tribunal that, "...Undoubtedly the appellant has been favourably commented upon by the Enquiry Officer but under the Rules the A Authorized Officer and the Authority are under no obligation to agree with the recommendations..."

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24‑5‑1984 in Appeal No.432/410 of 1983). ‑‑‑ Civil servant had been favorably commented upon by the Enquiry Officer‑ Authorised Officer and the Authority are under no obligation to agree with the recommendations.

Judgment & Decree

GHULAM MUJADDID, J:‑‑Abdur Rashid, Junior Clerk, Writ Branch, Headquarters Office, Board of Revenue, S & R Wing, Lahore, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24‑5‑1984. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner who was unable to assail the finding of the Tribunal that, "...Undoubtedly the appellant has been favourably commented upon by the Enquiry Officer but under the Rules the A Authorized Officer and the Authority are under no obligation to agree with the recommendations..." This finding of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Hence no case is made out for leave to appeal. Dismissed. M.B.A./A‑469/S Petition dismissed.