1990 PLP 1437 (SCMR)
AMIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1437 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1437 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1437 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1437 (SCMR) (AMIR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 16‑11‑1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 190‑R of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Termination of services during probation without show‑cause notice‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether during the probation,, civil servant was entitled to the show‑cause notice before an adverse action was taken against him. Muhammad Siddiq Javid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1974 S C: 393 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving as Assistant Director, Industries and Mineral Development. The petitioner while working in such capacity qualified the Central Superior Services Examination. He was allocated Accounts Group. During his stay in the Academy, the petitioner applied to the Federal Public Service Commission for a competitive Examination in 1984 to be able to be placed in a better Group. The Federal Public Service Commission found that the petitioner was not entitled to take the said examination as he was not eligible to a fourth chance and called for the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner was reported as absent unauthorisedly from 15 to 21‑6‑1985 during his military attachment. According to the petitioner, he fell seriously ill and got mental ailment and when he was declared mentally clear he furnished a medical certificate. On 19‑6‑1988, the services of the petitioner were terminated on unsatisfactory performance and conduct during the probation period.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no show‑cause notice was served upon the petitioner before terminating his services. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the probation he was entitled to the show cause notice before an adverse action is taken against him. He has relied upon Muhammad Siddiq Javid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1974 S C 393.
3. The point raised by the learned counsel requires examination. Leave is granted. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with the liberty to the parties to file additional document if they so desire. A.A./A‑706/S Leave granted.