1990 PLP 1438 (SCMR)
ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1438 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1438 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1438 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1438 (SCMR) (ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 10‑6‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in case No. 507/946 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report‑‑‑Reporting officer, while comparing civil servant's performance with other officers rated him as below average‑‑‑First countersigning officer considered civil servant's performance as quite fair and at par with that of an average officer‑‑‑Second countersigning officer, however, agreed with the Reporting officer‑‑‑Because of second countersigning officer's observations, remarks recorded by Reporting officer were conveyed to the petitioner‑‑‑Contention that civil servant's performance having been classed as average in Part II of A.C.R., same could not be described as below average in Part III of the Report, repelled‑‑‑Held; such contention was unfounded, for, in Part III of the Report, the performance of an officer was required to be compared with that of the other officers‑‑‑Even though an officer might be described as average in Part II, his rating could go down when his overall performance was compared with those of other officers of the same grade‑‑‑No inconsistency thus existed in that regard‑‑‑Civil servant had not pleaded that the Reporting officer or the second countersigning officer had any personal reason to give adverse remarks to him‑‑‑No question of law having arisen for consideration in the petition, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period 1‑1‑1981 to 13‑7‑1981 was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner City, Lahore. He described his performance as compared with the other officers as below average. While drawing his pen picture he observed that the petitioner had been transferred on complaint and required to mend his ways. The Deputy Commissioner who was the first countersigning officer, made the following entries:‑‑‑ "His performance has been quite fair and at par with that of an average officer." The Commissioner who was the second countersigning officer, recorded the following remarks:‑‑ "I, agree with the reporting officer:' In view of the observation made by the Commissioner, the remarks recorded by the Assistant Commissioner were conveyed to the petitioner. He riled a representation for their expunction. His representation was rejected whereupon he preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is stated that the remarks made by the Assistant Commissioner and endorsed by the Commissioner were contradictory. 1n this context, reference has been made to Part II of the A.C.R. wherein the petitioner's performance has been described to be average. Learned counsel argues that if the petitioner's performance was classed as average in Part II, it could not be described as below average in Part III of the report. There is little merit in this contention, for, in Part III, the performance of an officer is required to be compared with that of the other officers. Even though an officer may be described as average in Part II, his rating can go down when his overall performance is compared with that of the other officers of the same grade. We can find no inconsistency in this regard.
3. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner had any personal reason to give adverse remarks to him. Nol question of law arises for consideration in this petition. Leave is refused. A.A./A‑620/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.