1989 SCMR 1254 (PLP)
Ch. SHAUKAT ALI Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1254 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. SHAUKAT ALI Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1254 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1254 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1254 (PLP) (Ch. SHAUKAT ALI Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Masud Akhtar. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 19&8.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 11‑10‑1983, passed in Case No.203/165 of 1983). ‑‑‑ Expunction of adverse remarks from Annual Confidential Report‑‑Service Tribunal found that record of petitioner was chequered and his contention that the persons at the level of Commissioner had arraigned against him at various times so as to mar his career was not possible to believe‑‑No question of law having been raised against the order of Service Tribunal, Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11‑10‑1983.
2. In this petition the petitioner has questioned certain adverse remarks given to him by his superiors. His representation before the Additional Chief Secretary was rejected and his appeal before the Tribunal also met the same fate.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal and his prayer for expunction was repelled in the following times: "We have now to assess the comments of the Commissioner, keeping in view the entire background of the case and it would not be possible for us to hold that all the persons at the level of Commissioners had arraigned against the appellant at various times so as to mar his career. It will be preposterous to accept such like proposition. In the light of the above circumstances and analysis so made by us keeping in view the chequered record of service of the appellant, we do not feel any justification to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Secretary (respondent), or to take a different view than the Commissioner Mr. H. A R. Pasha, so expressed by him in his detailed comments on the record."
4. We have also examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find no merit in the petition in that no question of law has been raised in this case. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./S‑289/S Petition dismissed