1989 PLP 1179 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus M. NASRULLAH KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1179 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus M. NASRULLAH KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1179 (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 1179 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1179 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus M. NASRULLAH KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12-10‑1981 in Appeal No.13/1028 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Adverse remarks against civil servant ordered to be expunged by Service Tribunal‑‑Contention of department that Service Tribunal acted contrary to law in giving concession of expunction of remarks to the civil servant whose record was not clean‑‑Held. Supreme Court was expected to see whether the order of Tribunal was in accordance with law or there was any question of public importance to be determined‑‑No such question in the order of Tribunal was involved‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Government of the Punjab through Secretary, S.G.A. and I Department, Lahore and Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12‑10‑1981 whereby the adverse remarks given to the respondent were ordered to be expunged. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal acted contrary to law in giving this concession to the respondent whose record was not clean. We are not concerned with that. All that we have to see is whether the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law or there is any question of public importance to be determined. There is no such thing in the impugned order. Hence the petition is dismissed. M.BA./G‑175/S Petition dismissed.