1987 PLP 1150 (SCMR)
RAHMAT KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1150 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil service‑‑Misconduct‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Compulsory retirement from service challenged in constitutional jurisdiction without success‑‑Order impugned‑‑Charges of absence from duty and false implication of two senior teachers of University in a serious criminal case, established against petitioner‑‑No infirmity found in proceedings taken against him‑‑Plea that penalty imposed was extremely severe, repelled‑‑Quantum of punishment being a matter entirely for University authorities to determine and being not, too, severe in circumstances, petition dismissed.‑‑Civil service. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J, Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RAHMAT KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1150 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1150 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil service‑‑Misconduct‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Compulsory retirement from service challenged in constitutional jurisdiction without success‑‑Order impugned‑‑Charges of absence from duty and false implication of two senior teachers of University in a serious criminal case, established against petitioner‑‑No infirmity found in proceedings taken against him‑‑Plea that penalty imposed was extremely severe, repelled‑‑Quantum of punishment being a matter entirely for University authorities to determine and being not, too, severe in circumstances, petition dismissed.‑‑Civil service. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J, Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1150 (SCMR) (RAHMAT KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 19‑6‑1982 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2292 of 1982). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil service‑‑Misconduct‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Compulsory retirement from service challenged in constitutional jurisdiction without success‑‑Order impugned‑‑Charges of absence from duty and false implication of two senior teachers of University in a serious criminal case, established against petitioner‑‑No infirmity found in proceedings taken against him‑‑Plea that penalty imposed was extremely severe, repelled‑‑Quantum of punishment being a matter entirely for University authorities to determine and being not, too, severe in circumstances, petition dismissed.‑‑[Civil service].
Judgment & Decree
M. Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order, dated 19‑8‑1982 of the Lahore High Court whereby his writ petition against the order of his compulsory retirement from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was senior clerk in the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. He was served with a charge‑sheet on the allegation that he had remained absent without leave and that he had falsely implicated two senior teachers of the University in criminal case relating to his own abduction. After an inquiry, he was found guilty of both charges, Consequently, the Vice‑Chancellor directed his compulsory retirement from service. He filed an appeal which was rejected by the Syndicate. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success.
3. It will be noticed that the order of his compulsory retirement was made after a regular inquiry. The learned counsel appearing for him has not been able to show that the proceedings taken against him suffered from any infirmity. All that he has urged is that the penalty awarded to him was extremely severe. Apart from the fact that the quantum of punishment was a matter entirely for the University authorities to determine, the penalty imposed upon him does not seem to be, too, severe if we take into account the allegation that he had falsely implicated two teachers of the University in a criminal case. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /R‑16/S Petition dismissed.