1990 PLP 985 (SCMR)
KHURSHID ALAM, Ex‑SBA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 985 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHID ALAM, Ex‑SBA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 985 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 985 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 985 (SCMR) (KHURSHID ALAM, Ex‑SBA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 25‑3‑1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 101(R)/87).
R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service for misconduct on account of absence from duty‑‑‑Civil servant's contention that he had sent an application for grant of leave was not substantiated on record‑‑‑Civil servant was not present on duty on the dates for which he was charge‑sheeted‑‑ Facts of the case had been clearly narrated in the judgment of Service Tribunal‑‑ No question of law being involved in the petition, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 12th February, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to Appeal against the. Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 11‑3‑1989 by which his appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was a Switch Board Attendant. He was charge‑sheeted on 5‑4‑1982. The charge‑sheet reads as follows:‑‑ "Misconduct of duty.‑‑In that while employed as SBA(GTE) under SDO E/M GE (Air) CKL absented himself from duty without sanction of leave by competent authority w.e.f. from 25‑11‑1981 till todate." He was proceeded against under the Efficiency and‑ Discipline Rules. He was removed from service with effect from 11‑5‑1983 by means of order dated 24‑5‑1983. The petitioner challenged this order before the Federal Service Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner fell ill and he applied for one month's leave with effect from 4‑10‑1981 to 3‑11‑1981 on medical grounds. His real uncle was murdered and he prosecuted the case in the Special Military Court and he therefore applied for three weeks' leave with effect from 25‑11‑1981 to attend the Court.
4. Before the Service Tribunal it was submitted by the respondent that the petitioner only submitted three days' leave application with effect from 4‑10‑1981 to 6‑10‑1981 and left the office without prior approval. The leave was not sanctioned. The petitioner attended the office on 4‑11‑1981 to receive his pay for the month of October 1981. He remained absent in spite of directions of the authorities and failed to resume his duty. All the letters sent to him at his permanent address were received back undelivered. No leave application was received on any occasion. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as he had failed to appear.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has only recorded the contentions of the counsel for the respondent and made no observation of its own keeping in view the facts of case and that the past conduct of the petitioner was also taken into consideration.
6. We find that the petitioner had failed to substantiate that he had sent any application to the respondent for grant of leave. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not present on duty on the dates for which he was charge‑sheeted. He also did not mention as to when the trial before the Military Court started and concluded. The facts have been clearly narrated in the impugned judgment. No question of law is involved in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. A:A./K‑140/S Petition dismissed