1990 PLP 1466 (SCMR)
AFZAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1466 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AFZAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1466 (SCMR) (AFZAL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 18‑9‑1984 in Appeal No. 655(L) of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Removal from service‑ Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner who was removed from service contended that before his removal neither he was served with any show‑cause notice nor any enquiry was held against him and that such procedure was un‑Islamic in view of decision of Supreme Court reported as P L D 1987 S C 304‑‑Dictum laid down in Supreme Court case being not applicable to case of petitioner, there was no substance in petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Petition of leave to appeal was dismissed. Pakistan v. Public‑at‑Large PLD 1987 SC 304 ref.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑Afzal Ahmad, son of Muhammad Rafique, Ex.‑Meter Reader, WAPDA, RA. Bazar Sub‑Division, Lahore Cantt. seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 18‑9‑1984. The petitioner was removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. The solitary contention raised before us was that before he was required to leave the office vide order dated 18‑7‑1982, the petitioner was never served with any show‑cause notice nor an enquiry was held. It was contended that though not mentioned in so many words in the petition, this procedure was un‑Islamic. In support of this reliance was placed on Pakistan v. Public‑at‑large P L D 1987 SC
304. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the present one. We, therefore, don't find any substance in this petition for leave to appeal. Dismissed. H.B.T./A‑566/S Leave refused.