1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION BAHAWALPUR and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada Chairman |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION BAHAWALPUR and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION BAHAWALPUR and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleh Siddiqui for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing- 13th December, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 4
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4
Civil servant-- Penalty of fine for misconduct
Civil servant failed to pinpoint and establish any discrepancy of facts or of law in the order of imposition of fine
Order in question, passed by respondent Authority, was unexceptionable either on facts or on law
Charge, for which civil servant was penalised by Authority stood fully proved from the material on record
Civil servant had failed to rebut the same by oral or documentary evidence
Penalty imposed on civil servant was not interfered with in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION BAHAWALPUR and 2 others Appeal No.171/722 of 1988, decided on 27th December, 1989.
R. 4
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4
Civil servant-- Penalty of fine for misconduct
Civil servant failed to pinpoint and establish any discrepancy of facts or of law in the order of imposition of fine
Order in question, passed by respondent Authority, was unexceptionable either on facts or on law
Charge, for which civil servant was penalised by Authority stood fully proved from the material on record
Civil servant had failed to rebut the same by oral or documentary evidence
Penalty imposed on civil servant was not interfered with in appeal. Muhammad Saleh Siddiqui for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing- 13th December, 1989.