2010 PLP 240 (SCMR)
KHURSHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 240 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Sayed Zahid Hussain and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 240 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 240 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Sayed Zahid Hussain and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 240 (SCMR) (KHURSHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mehmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 6-4-2009 passed in Appeal No.380 of 2008).
Art. 212(3)
Charge against civil servant was that he joined as teacher in the Government School at place "M" in 1997 although his posting was done at place "W"
Contentions of the petitioner was that he had joined the duty at. place "M" pursuant to a direction issued by the competent authority; that he served there for almost ten years without any complaint whatsoever; that he drew salary against the said post and it was not 'tenable in law to proceed against him on the said charge and that no senior official with whose consent he worked there was proceeded against on charges of misconduct
Leave to appeal was granted to the civil servant by Supreme Court, inter alia, to consider whether the charge of misconduct could have been said to have been proved notwithstanding the fact that for a period of ten years neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the said posting.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner who was serving as Elementary English Teacher was proceeded against departmentally which culminated in the award of major penalty' of removal from service. The charge against him primarily was that he joined as E.E.T. in Government Primary School Mandianwala, Tehsil Sharqpur in February, 1997 although his posting was at Wahgray.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had joined the duty at Mandianwala pursuant to a direction issued by the competent authority; that he served there for almost ten years without any complaint whatsoever; that he drew salary against the said post and it was not tenable in law to proceed against him on the afore-referred ground. Adds that no senior official with whose consent he worked there was proceeded against on charges of misconduct.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length leave is granted, inter alia, to consider whether the charge of misconduct could have been said to have been proved notwithstanding the fact that for a period of ten years neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the said posting. M.B.A./K-13/SC Leave granted.