2000 PLP 1640 (SCMR)
and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1640 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J. and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1640 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1640 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J. and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1640 (SCMR) (and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akmal Wasim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20-2-1997 passed in Appeal No.80(K) of 1996).
Art. 212(3)
Refusal to extend medical leave-- Civil servant was granted leaver on medical grounds but such leave was not extended
Period of unauthorised absence was treated as leave without pay
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the civil servant and he was removed from service
Service Tribunal while setting aside the order of removal from service was right in holding that once request for medical leave was granted, subsequent request for extension of such leave could not be declined without referring his case for a second medical opinion either to an officer of the Health Department or a Medical Board
Judgment of the Tribunal being not open to exception, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The respondent was serving as Inspector in the Customs Department since 8-12-1985. In 1982 he was posted at Mirpurkhas when he suffered angina pain and got medical treatment from the Medical Officer at Mirpurkhas as an outdoor patient. In the meanwhile he informed the Department about his said illness through a telegram dated 12-5-1992 which was also dcpompanied by a medical certificate. Although, leave was sanctioned for an initial period of two months but further extension of leave was refused and instead disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and as a consequence thereof a major penalty of removal from service was imposed. The period o f unauthorised absence was also treated as Leave without pay.
2. The respondent approached the Service Tribunal in appeal and the learned Tribunal has set aside the said order holding that the circumstances did not call for holding of an inquiry against the respondent. Once request for medical leave was granted the respondent's subsequent request for extension of such leave could not be declined without referring his case for a second medical opinion either to an officer of the Health Department or a Medical Board.
3. We have heard Mr. Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for the petitioner-department and rave also perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal. In view of the circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Tribunal does not appear to be open to exception. In the result, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C-10/S Petition dismissed.