1990 PLP 1005 (SCMR)
MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1005 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman 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 1005 (SCMR) (MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989.
- 3. Mr. A.H. Najal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it remained unproved that the petitioner made the alterations in the entries in Revenue Record. Further, according to the learned counsel the pending enquiries should not have been referred to at all or made the basis for taking action against the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26‑3‑1986 passed in Case No. 380/316 of 1985). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.212 (3)‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Charge against civil servant was interpolation of Revenue Record and supplying incorrect copies of such record deliberately and dishonestly‑‑‑Finding of fact on the issue of interpolation of Revenue Record was concurrent to the effect that civil servant had made the changes in Revenue Record in his own handwriting‑‑‑Such finding of fact was also affirmed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Finding of fact concurrently recorded was not open to challenge in petition under Art. 212(3) of the Constitution. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Pending enquiries against civil servant‑‑‑Evidentiary value of‑‑ Civil servant's plea was that pending enquiries should not have been referred to or made the basis for taking action against him ‑‑‑Held: After recording a finding of guilty there was nothing wrong in reviewing the nature or quality of service rendered by employee in the past with a view to determine specific penalty that could suitably be imposed on him‑‑‑Civil servant's objection could have a plausible basis of such inchoate charges had been referred to or made basis of finding with regard to altogether different charges‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a dismissed Patwari, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26‑3‑1986 by which his appeal too was dismissed.
2. The petitioner within months of his taking up appointment as Patwari was suspended, charge‑sheeted and dismissed. The allegation against him was that he made interpolations in the Revenue Record and supplied incorrect copies of it and this was done deliberately and dishonestly. The numerous other pending enquiries were also taken note of for deciding upon the penalty of dismissal.
3. Mr. A.H. Najal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it remained unproved that the petitioner made the alterations in the entries in Revenue Record. Further, according to the learned counsel the pending enquiries should not have been referred to at all or made the basis for taking action against the petitioner.
4. As regards the first contention the Service Tribunal recorded the following finding:‑ "The record of this case has been produced before this Tribunal today and has been examined carefully. The examination of the record clearly reveals that word `Imam Bakhsh' stands added and same is in the hands of the appellant without any shadow of doubt, as this Tribunal has compared his other handwriting with the said interpolation. In view of the above findings of fact by the Tribunal which further confirms the concurrent findings on this issue made by the learned Assistant Commissioner and the learned Commissioner, the charge of interpolation in Khasra Girdawari in the hands of the appellant stands fully proved." This finding of fact is not open to challenge in petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
5. As regards the second ground, after recording a finding of guilty, there is nothing wrong in reviewing the nature or quality of service rendered by the employee in the past with a view to determine the specific penalty that can be suitably imposed on him. The objection could have a plausible basis if such inchoate charges had been referred to or made basis of finding with regard to altogether different charges.
6. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is refused. AA./M‑1132/5 Leave refused.