MUHAMMAD QASIM KHATTAK versus ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR
Section 5 Advertising Remarks Employee's Annual Confidential Report was notified of the removal of Ad Remarks, who was serving as Civil Judge / Judicial Magistrate at the time, when he was then Chief Justice of the The counter was signed by the High Court. His, preferred, representation before the High Court's management committee, which rejected the valid employment display that was included in the judicial service in 1995, if any of his dealings with senior officers and the general public There was no complaint, then they were treated by counsel, they had no power, because the counseling directory was and was not mandatory even otherwise, the district and session judge and chief justice were the officers who were subordinate judicial officers. Could work under and accurately assess their behavior. He was an excellent judge of his work, behavior, and character, based on his own observations, public reputation, and other such material that could be brought to the notice of the employee, and usually was not. ? Being part of a reporting record under a reporting officer or countersigning officer was a matter of subjective assessment and could not change the view recorded by the objective assessment tribunal or court, reporting officer or countersigning officer. , Nor will it interfere with the above assessment, however, was subject to the exception, when the self-reporting officer or the counterarguing officer himself did not enjoy good reputation and against it in particular and secondly, That's when he was accused of defamation. The instructions were grossly violated, c
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
