PLC(CS) 1981

1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL AZIZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT ETC.

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Appeal No. 10 of 1980, decided on 9th September, 1980.
Honorable Judges
M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and One Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and One Member
Parties ABDUL AZIZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT ETC.
Primary Law Civil service‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and One Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL AZIZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT ETC.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service‑‑‑

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑Intervening period‑‑Treatment of official charged of fraud and negligenceFraud not proved‑Appeal accepted by Service Tribunal--Not a case of altogether exoneration‑Negligence established‑Allowed 3/4th of salary for period of suspension or out of service.

Judgment & Decree

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this reference the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, has desired the clarification as to the treatment to be extended to the appellant for the period he remained out of service. Since the appellant has not altogether been exonerated, therefore our answer to the reference is that for the period from 25th February, 1979 to 7th May, 1979; during which the appellant remained under suspension or away from duty, he was entitled to 3/4th of the salary. While taking the decision we are influenced by the fact that in terms of the decision of this Tribunal, the appellant has not been found guilty or tiny fraud. He was merely negligent for which he will lose 1/4th of his salary for the entire period. The reference is disposed of accordingly.