SHAFIQ ABBAS SHAH versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
Section 5 instructions on confidential information, countermeasures for counter No. 23 and 30 WG Appellant's services have been expelled for 18 years, and they did not receive a single negative ACR during the said period. One of the appellant's contentious disputes was that they were negative comments in violation of instructions 23 and 30 of the Secret Reports that the appellant's appraisal reporting officer and countersigning officer's credible information in the ACR. And was based on personal observation. No solid material needed. Conflicting comments about the applicant's integrity were not based on the reasons listed in Guideline No 23 for expressing confidential reports \ The reporting officer should be in a position to justify his views, if requested, do so. There was a lot of significance used in Instruction No. 30, which should have been based on Reverse's Remarks, but there was some solid material, but the reporting officer could not consolidate the above-mentioned remarks with respect to any of the material, to the appellant's 18-year unarmed carrier. In view of this, it was held that the negative opinion of the appellant's work and integrity Arcs are recorded. The appellant tribunal suffered serious prejudice, without justifying it, on the basis of the baseless statement of the reporting officer and countersigning officer, on questions from appellant's ACR. Directed to delete negative comment circumstances r \ n
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2014
