Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 321

ALLAH RAKHA vs THE COMMISSIONER; SARGODHA DIVISION and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 321
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 889 of 1982
Date1988-08-07
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid
Authored byGhulam Mujaddid
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Rakha against the order dated 20-9-1982 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal concerning an adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 1972. The core legal question involves determining whether the Tribunal's order suffered from any error of law or presented a question of public importance warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel failed to point out any error of law or question of public importance, and that the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law and not a fit case for leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with service tribunal orders upholding adverse confidential reports in the absence of legal error or a question of public importance.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding an adverse entry in an annual confidential report without an error of law?
  • Is an adverse entry in an annual confidential report a matter raising a question of public importance?
  • When will leave to appeal be refused against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal?
service tribunalannual confidential reportadverse entryleave to appealsupreme court

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Punjab Service Tribunal by order dated 20-9-1982 dismissed the appeal filed by Allah Rakha petitioner against the adverse entry recorded in his annual confidential report for the year 1972. He now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He was unable to point out any error of law or question of public importance which needs examination.

3. ' The order of the Tribunal being in accordance with law calls for no interference. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.