SHEIKH ALLAH BAKHSH versus THE REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT
Remarks relating to the requirements of the reporting officer and countersigning officer for violating the directions from section 5 1 1 2002 to 13 5 2002 and 10 7 2004 to 31 12 2004 in which the charges against the reporting officer's qualification will be made by the appellant. Was that the negative comments recorded by the countersigning officer were misconstrued and that the appellant received good comments by the year 2000 before recording his negative remarks and He was too. As an "honest" judging officer, it was reported that it was surprising how dishonest, malicious and incompetent the appellant was in the next few months, especially when there were no complaints against him. Evaluated the applicant's actions and conduct. In a way, which was against the directions of this article, whereby the Reporting Officer and the Counter Signing Officer should, as far as possible, be part of the Reporting Officer from Part II to Part IV, according to which this officer's examination Check that their \ Personal Competence \, \ Behavior \ and \ Job Skills \ had placed the Appellant in column \ c. \, Which indicates that the reporting officer's review was \ subjective and not objective, therefore, the method adopted in ACR recording was not considered appropriate and the reporting officer's ACR was not considered The sentiment was close, biased at the time of recording, the possibility of appellant's ACR and his disease malfunction and probability could not be ruled out by the Tribunal for the period from 1 1 2002 to 13 5 2002 Negative records recorded by the counseling officer in CR
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2015
