1990 SCMR 1431 (PLP)
Department and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN, EXTRA ASSISTANT
| Citation | 1990 SCMR 1431 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Department and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN, EXTRA ASSISTANT |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR 1431 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 SCMR 1431 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR 1431 (PLP) (Department and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN, EXTRA ASSISTANT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989.
- 2. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner objected at first to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review or reconsider the recording of the remarks and to sit in judgments over their correctness or otherwise. Secondly, he also contested the propriety and the desirability of the interference by the Tribunal in this particular case. As regards the first ground Mr. Saeed Beg, the learned counsel has conceded that in view of various decisions of this Court it is no longer possible to contend that such a matter is outside the purview of the Tribunal. As regards the desirability or the propriety of interference, Mr. Saeed Beg has confined his submissions to the facts already taken note of by the Tribunal, namely, the Comments of the Commissioner that he made adverse remarks on the basis of general reputation enjoyed by the Officer.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23‑5‑1985 passed in Appeal No. 837/1102 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑In recording adverse remarks or opinions, although full reasons need not be given, but conclusions have to be based on facts and when in contest, concerned officer should give plausible explanation to justify his conclusions‑‑‑Where the recording officer had failed to do so, Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with order passed by officer concerned‑‑‑No question of law of public importance having been raised, leave to appeal was refused. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23‑3‑1985 whereby the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report by the countersigning officer namely, the Commissioner, were ordered to he expunged.
2. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner objected at first to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review or reconsider the recording of the remarks and to sit in judgments over their correctness or otherwise. Secondly, he also contested the propriety and the desirability of the interference by the Tribunal in this particular case. As regards the first ground Mr. Saeed Beg, the learned counsel has conceded that in view of various decisions of this Court it is no longer possible to contend that such a matter is outside the purview of the Tribunal. As regards the desirability or the propriety of interference, Mr. Saeed Beg has confined his submissions to the facts already taken note of by the Tribunal, namely, the Comments of the Commissioner that he made adverse remarks on the basis of general reputation enjoyed by the Officer.
3. The performance of a magistrate is not so much a matter of reputation as of expert assessment by a superior from record and performance relatable to individual cases and situations. By resorting to the reputation as the source and not to the actual performance the Commissioner has justified his remarks by reference to a somewhat extraneous consideration. It is true that ordinarily, in recording remarks or opinions, full reasons need not be given but the conclusions have to be based on facts and when in contest, as in this case the concerned officer should have plausible explanation to justify his conclusions. In this case that was not adequately done and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with it.
4. No question of law of public importance is raised in the case. Hence leave to appeal is refused. H.Bf.T./G‑243/S Leave refused.