2004 PLP 929 (YLR)
IMRAN ULLAH SHEIKH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 929 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | IMRAN ULLAH SHEIKH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 929 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 929 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 929 (YLR) (IMRAN ULLAH SHEIKH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Haider Al-Ghazali for Petitioner.
- Arfan Masood Sheikh, Legal Advisor for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Educational institution-- Issuance of show-cause notice to candidate and his disqualification
Validity-- Petitioner had prayed that show-cause notice issued to him be declared without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and mala fide and that during pendency of Constitutional petition respondents had passed order of disqualification of petitioner for one year and that said order was not sustainable in the eyes of law-- Impugned order having been passed by respondents after completing all legal formalities, same was valid and it was not necessary for the respondents to call supervisory staff in the witness-box-- High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunal below
General allegation of malice was not sustainable. M. Musaddaq Naseem's case PLD 1973 Lah. 600; Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90; Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice- Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another PLD 1981 SC 464; Saeed Ahmad s case PLD 1974 SC 151 and Aman Ullah's case PLD 1990 SC 1092 ref.
Judgment & Decree
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents had issued the aforesaid notices to the petitioner mala fide. He further submits that respondents have no lawful authority to issue the impugned notices to the petitioner. He further submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondents passed the order of disqualification of the petitioner A for one year vide order dated 24-2-2003. He further submits that order dated 24-2-2003 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order dated 31-1-2003.
3. The learned Legal Advisor of the respondents submits that respondents passed the order dated 24-2-2003 after completing all the legal formalities. He further submits that the material was recovered from the petitioner which was relevant to the paper in question, therefore, impugned order is in accordance with law.
4. The, learned counsel of the petitioner, in rebuttal, submits that the material was not recovered from the petitioner in the examination hall, therefore, that material attached by the respondents with the report and parawise comments has no relevancy and the order has been passed by the respondents mala fide.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
6. The impugned order was passed by the respondents after completing all the legal formalities, therefore, same is valid in the eyes of law. It is not necessary for the respondents to call the supervisory staff in the witness-box and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunals below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- M. Musaddaq Naseem's case PLD 1973 Lahore
600. Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC
90. Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice -Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another PLD 1981 SC
464. It is also settled principle of law that general allegation of malice is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: -- Saeed Ahmad's case PLD 1974 SC
151. Aman Ullah's case PLD 1990 SC 1092. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./I-219/L Petition dismissed.