MUHAMMAD ASAD ULLAH SIDDIQUI versus LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Section 5 instructions on confidential information, negative comments on counter numbers 23, 30 and 45, which resulted in the officer facing serious prejudice, resulting in the dismissal of the countersigning officer without first assigning any reason. The reporting of the CR did not agree with the officer's assessment. Applicant's ACR through the Second ACR Cuttings and Replacement Reporting Officer was made in effect that the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer were affected by the dispute between the Appellant and his / her partner and the negative comments without any critical commentary. Recordings or reasons deductions and alterations made the fact of the assessment extremely suspicious The Reporting Officer's assessment (reported to be corrupt) was not inconsistent with the assessment made in Part VI, whereby the appellant was further retained in the service. Was found to be useful for In Part VI, the appellant was found fit for promotion in his turn, the advertising remarks in respect of the applicant's integrity clearly showed that these instructions were not based on the reasons stated in section 23. The expression officer should be in a position to justify his views to the reporting officer, if requested, do so ??????? The use of instructions in secret number 30 was of great importance. The above comment should be based on a solid substance. Was, but could not supplement these remarks with the Remarks on the Reporting Officer regarding sufficient material admission to the ACRs. The integrity of the appellant recorded by the reporting officer and the countersigning officer was declared to be baseless, and for no reason was the victim and for both periods.
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2015
