2015 PLP 705 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL — Petitioner Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL — Petitioner Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 705 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 705 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL — Petitioner Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Razzaq A. Mirza, Additional A.-G., Mian Ashfaq Ahmed, Registrar Tribunal and Arif Hussain, Assistant, Tribunal Branch for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 2015.
- We have heard the parties at some length and have also gone through the orders of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 22-12-2014 and 23-12-2014 passed in Service Appeal No.11 of 2012. In the order of 22-12-2014 it has been mentioned that Mr. Muhammad Sanaullah Devel Advocate has presented an application under Order I, R. 10, C.P.C. praying that he be impleaded as a party. We note that Mr. Sanaullah Devel was a witness whose testimony has already been recorded in the inquiry. It may well be that he brought certain facts to the attention of the inquiry officer but this does not mean that he can become a party. His status remains that of an informant and witness only. We do not see how the disciplinary proceedings in this case, which are between employer and employee, can be turned into a contentious matter by an outsider. This is particularly so considering that the petitioner before us stands terminated from service. We are also cognizant that the petitioner's rights under Article 18 of the Constitution may be involved.
Headnotes / Summary
O. I, R. 10
Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991). S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 18
Scope
Witness/informant of inquiry proceedings
Witness whose testimony was recorded during inquiry proceedings presented an application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. praying that he be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal
Testimony of such witness had already been recorded in the inquiry, and it may well be that he brought certain facts to the attention of the inquiry officer but that did not mean that he could become a party
Status of such witness remained that of an informant and witness only
Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer/ petitioner in the present case, which were between an employer and employee could not be turned into a contentious matter by an outsider, and this was particularly so considering that the petitioner stood terminated from service
Petitioner's rights under Art. 18 of the Constitution may also be involved in the present case
Order passed by Service Tribunal to the extent of impleadment of witness of inquiry proceedings as party, being not warranted, was set aside
Judgment & Decree
We have heard the parties at some length and have also gone through the orders of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 22-12-2014 and 23-12-2014 passed in Service Appeal No.11 of 2012. In the order of 22-12-2014 it has been mentioned that Mr. Muhammad Sanaullah Devel Advocate has presented an application under Order I, R. 10, C.P.C. praying that he be impleaded as a party. We note that Mr. Sanaullah Devel was a witness whose testimony has already been recorded in the inquiry. It may well be that he brought certain facts to the attention of the inquiry officer but this does not mean that he can become a party. His status remains that of an informant and witness only. We do not see how the disciplinary proceedings in this case, which are between employer and employee, can be turned into a contentious matter by an outsider. This is particularly so considering that the petitioner before us stands terminated from service. We are also cognizant that the petitioner's rights under Article 18 of the Constitution may be involved.
2. We have been informed that the next date of hearing before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal is 16-1-2015. We, therefore, hope that on 16-1-2015 the matter shall be heard and decided finally. The order of 22-12-2014 (ibid) to the extent of impleadment of Mr. Sanaullah Devel as party, being not warranted is set aside as it could not be defended by the learned Law Officer.
3. Let this petition now be listed for hearing on 20th January, 2015. MWA/M-13/SC Order accordingl