P L D (Rev (PLP)
GHULAM NABI (Superintendent Deputy Commissioner's Office, Mianwali)‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI (Superintendent Deputy Commissioner's Office, Mianwali)‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Saidullah Khan, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (GHULAM NABI (Superintendent Deputy Commissioner's Office, Mianwali)‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Public Servant‑Charge‑sheet delivered against by Com missioner‑Explanation tendered to Commissioner‑Commissioner should not send down case to Deputy Commissioner to conduct departmental proceedings but should dispose it of on merits himself
Judgment & Decree
SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑These are four connected appeals the facts whereof are identical ; hence their disposal by one order. The facts briefly stated are that Ch. Ghulam Nabi Super intendent, Deputy Commissioner's Office Mianwali, stood charged on four different counts vide charge‑sheets dated the 7th May, 1951, 7th May, 1951, 2nd November, 1951 and 14th November, 1951 and shown as Exhibits A, B, C and D respectively. The explanation furnished by Ch. Ghulam Nabi is contained as Exhibits D‑I, D‑II, D‑III and D‑IV. The learned Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division after a perusal of these explanations forwarded the records of this case to the Deputy Commissioner Attock, with a direction that be was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental proceedings against Ch. Ghulam Nabi vide his Memo. No. 692‑HQ, dated the 14/18th November, 1951. it was against this direction of the learned Commissioner that Ch. Ghulam Nabi bas now Instituted this appeal. Ch. Gbulam Nabi in person and the Government Advocate for the Crown present and heard. After lengthy arguments the learned Government Advocate conceded that the charges as framed by the learned Commis sioner and the explanation offered by Ch. Ghulam Nabi the Commissioner should have proceeded to dispose of the case himself on merits according to rules rather than to have forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner Attock, for the completion of the enquiry. The learned Government Advocate proceeded to say that once the charge‑sheet was delivered and the explanation offered the officer tendering the charge‑sheet should have himself proceeded to dispose of the case on merits and there was there fore, no justification whatsoever in the direction given by the Commissioner. Agreeing with this view I direct that the learned Commissioner should, after a perusal of the explanation furnished by the appellant, dispose of this case on merits consistent with the existing rules on the subject. A. H. Order accordingly.