1985 PLP 1937 (SCMR)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1937 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution opt Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1937 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution opt Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1937 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1937 (SCMR) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Q. M. Sharif-ul-Islam, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
- A. Q. M. Sharif‑ul‑Islam, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22-10-1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 4645 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Misconduct--Misreading of evidence--Leave granted inter alia to examine whether facts found in inquiry do not constitute such misconduct as would be punishable with penalty imposed on respondent as also question whether impugned orders do not suffer from misreading of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 22nd October, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional writ petition filed by the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited (the petitioner herein) arising out of a disciplinary action against Muhammad Rafiq respondent, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had taken strong disciplinary action against the respondent on a finding that he was guilty of misconduct. The matter was taken up by the Labour Court which interpreted the Inquiry Report against the petitioner as one of exoneration and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The petitioner having failed up to the High Court has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court when dealing with the Inquiry Report observed as follows: "In other words, absolving the petitioner from the charge of dishonesty the Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of an attempt of dishonesty."
4. The accusation against the respondent was that he had pocketed the amount realized from sale of tickets without issuing the proper tickets to the passengers of an omnibus, whereas he was serving as a conductor.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine whether the facts found in the Inquiry Report, which have not been disturbed do not constitute such misconduct a would be punishable with the penalty imposed on the respondent as also, the question whether the impugned orders do not suffer from misreading of evidence.
6. Order accordingly.
7. The orders impugned before the High Court are suspended meanwhile. M.I. Leave granted.