1989 PLP 1237 (SCMR)
Munshi FALAK SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1237 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | Munshi FALAK SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1237 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1237 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1237 (SCMR) (Munshi FALAK SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 29‑11‑1982 passed in Appeal No.615 of 1981). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner was charge‑sheeted on various grounds, an enquiry was held and after issuing a show‑cause notice dismissal order was passed‑‑Service Tribunal, on appeal, had found that petitioner had purchased land worth thousands of rupees in his wife and brother's name without permission of the proper Authority being a Government servant; had tampered and changed the record and only he could do that being its ultimate beneficiary which proved allegations against him‑‑View taken by Service Tribunal was in accordance with law and raised no question of law of public importance which might require further examination by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 29‑11‑1982 whereby his appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner was charge‑sheeted on various grounds. An enquiry was held and after issuing a show‑cause notice a dismissal order was passed which was maintained on appeal. The Service Tribunal examined the factual aspect as well as the legal aspect of the case and held as follows:‑ "We are satisfied that according to the rules the Assistant Commissioner could act as authority as well as authorised officer and there is no bar for the authority to act as an authorised officer in this case. Thus, this objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is overruled. As far as merit of the case is concerned, one fact is clear that the appellant purchased the land in the name of his wife and that too from the same Halqa and this fact is acknowledged by the appellant as well. He could not purchase such land worth thousands of rupees within his Halqa without the permission of the proper authority being a Government employee. This also leads to the presumption that the land purchased in the name of his brother was a mala fide transaction. As far as the tampering and change of the record is concerned, the above facts also prove that only he could have done the same being its ultimate beneficiary. We agree with the contentions of the respondents and are also convinced with the reasons given in the impugned orders which clearly prove the allegations against the appellant." We find that the view taken by the Service Tribunal is in accord with law and raises no question of law of public importance which may require further examination in this Court. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A./F‑115/S Petition dismissed.