1980 PLP 707 (SCMR)
JAFFAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 707 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | JAFFAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 707 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 707 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 707 (SCMR) (JAFFAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muzafar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th January, 1980.
- Muzafar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 10-1-1978 in Appeal No. 47 (K) of 1977). -- Art. 185-No legal question of any public importance involved in case-Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed as having no merit.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 10th of January, 1978, by which Appeal No. 47 (K) was dismissed. The petitioner who is a driver refused to obey the order as on 6th of January, 1976, to drive the car of the Assistant Collector (Preventive), on the ground that he was a sepoy for which disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him and he was dismissed from service : and his appeal to the Central Board of Revenue against it was also dismissed. He next instituted the present appeal began the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, for redress but did not succeed as it was held that as a sepoy he worked as a driver and further that he was guilty of insubordination. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order on the short ground that being a sepoy he could not be transferred against a driver's vacancy but that objection was decided against him as he was held to be working as a driver in that capacity. As for his act of insubordination, it was also established against him. As no legal question of any public importance is involved, we see no merit in this petition; and equally there is no merit in his submission that he was not guilty of any wanton behaviour. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.