MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SHAGUFTA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT versus LAHORE HIGH COURT
Section 5 The Judicial Officer had not filed any complimentary complaint against the Judicial Officer in his comments regarding the annulment of the Annual Confidential Report; the fact was acknowledged by the Authority long before the Annual Confidential Report was published. The judicial officer had earned good information for nearly twenty years of his service, who was also an inspection judge, inspected the courts only once in 1988 and at that time did not file any negative comment against the judicial officer. Was. The report under question had to be recorded under paragraph 23 of the relevant directive, issued under Section 23, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which had the status of rules under which the annual intelligence report should not be confused. But there was no material available on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the reputation of the Judicial Officer is generally and permanently corrupt; therefore, the annual confidential reports recorded by the reporting officer are of any valid basis and justification. Was without charge, and besides, he was responsible for the dismissal, there was neither a complaint nor any Neither disclosure was made nor any consultation that did not contain information or credibility that could not be identified, no suspicious dangerous information could be recorded against the Judicial Officer, questions regarding the Judicial Officer's Annual Confidential Reports. Was instructed to exclude the negative reaction.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
