Ch. SHAUKAT ALI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of his representation regarding adverse remarks recorded in his service record by his superiors. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in its assessment of the petitioner's service record and its refusal to expunge the adverse remarks made by the Commissioner. Upon reviewing the judgment of the Tribunal and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the background of the case and the Commissioner's comments. The Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the remarks were the result of bias or that the Tribunal had misdirected itself. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds that it raised no substantial question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that service tribunals are the final arbiters of fact regarding service records unless a clear error of law is demonstrated.
- Does the refusal of a Service Tribunal to expunge adverse remarks in a service record constitute a question of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding the assessment of a civil servant's record?
- Is a Service Tribunal required to accept allegations of bias against superior officers without evidence?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11-10-1983.
2. In this petition the petitioner has questioned certain adverse remarks given to him by his superiors. His representation before the Additional Chief Secretary was rejected and his appeal before the Tribunal also met the same fate.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal and his prayer for expunction was repelled in the following times: "We have now to assess the comments of the Commissioner, keeping in view the entire background of the case and it would not be possible for us to hold that all the persons at the level of Commissioners had arraigned against the appellant at various times so as to mar his career. It will be preposterous to accept such like proposition. In the light of the above circumstances and analysis so made by us keeping in view the chequered record of service of the appellant, we do not feel any justification to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Secretary (respondent), or to take a different view than the Commissioner Mr. H. R. Pasha, so expressed by him in his detailed comments on the record."
4. We have also examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find no merit in the petition in that no question of law has been raised in this case. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL RAUF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF & 14 others 2013 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 206
- ABDUL RAUF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and 14 others 2013 CLC 219
- ABDUL RAUF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and 14 otherss 2014 YLR 2258