1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
HASSAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | HASSAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (HASSAN SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Riaz for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Adverse remarks recorded by Authority in A.C.R. were challenged on ground that period spent by civil servant under command of Police Officer concerned at different Police Stations was less than 3 months and as such adverse remarks against him did not carry any validity
Provision of para. 6 of the Inspector-General of Police's Standing Order had prescribed 3 months as minimum period for writing of Confidential Reports and any report recorded in respect of a period less than minimum prescribed period was to be ignored
Authorities having themselves admitted that period of A.C.R. was less than prescribed period of 3 months, order of Authority was set aside by Tribunal, directing that entire report against civil servant should be scored out.
Judgment & Decree
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another Appeal No. 248 of 1989, decided on 21st February, 1991.
Adverse remarks recorded by Authority in A.C.R. were challenged on ground that period spent by civil servant under command of Police Officer concerned at different Police Stations was less than 3 months and as such adverse remarks against him did not carry any validity
Provision of para. 6 of the Inspector-General of Police's Standing Order had prescribed 3 months as minimum period for writing of Confidential Reports and any report recorded in respect of a period less than minimum prescribed period was to be ignored
Authorities having themselves admitted that period of A.C.R. was less than prescribed period of 3 months, order of Authority was set aside by Tribunal, directing that entire report against civil servant should be scored out. M.A. Riaz for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents, Date of hearing: 4th February, 1991.