1990 PLP 1484 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AMIN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1484 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1484 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1484 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1484 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AMIN‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 24‑5‑1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal, in Service Appeal No.207 of 1988). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Removal from service on charge of misconduct‑‑Civil servant's appeal was dismissed by Service Tribunal‑‑Legality‑‑Civil servant was removed from service as a result of disciplinary inquiry on 31‑7‑1988‑‑Service Tribunal's observation that civil servant's resignation dated 3‑7‑1988 was accepted on 9‑7‑1988, with effect from 3‑8‑1988, i.e. after three days of his removal from service, resulted in dismissal of his appeal‑‑Once the civil servant was removed from service, acceptance of his resignation with effect from specified date, held, would not be legal‑‑Tribunal having ignored that aspect of the case, case required consideration‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving as Junior Clerk on 13‑7‑1988 when two memoranda of allegations were sent to him on the charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption. It was alleged that on 13‑7‑1.988 that the petitioner was absent from duty and that he had submitted a bogus T.A. bill for the month of April, 1988. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within three days. He denied the allegations and requested a personal hearing by the Conservative of Forests. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 31‑7‑1988 by the Divisional Forest Officer in the capacity of Authority. The petitioner challenged the order of his termination in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed.
2. The petitioner who has been heard in person has drawn our attention to the following observations of the learned Tribunal:‑
"We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have come to the conclusion that appellant instead of contesting the enquiry before the concerned officer submitted his resignation on 3‑7‑1988 from 3‑8‑1988 which was accepted by respondent No.l on 9‑7‑1988 with effect from 3‑8‑1988 so now the appellant cannot say that he had withdrawn his resignation later on and his case may be dealt with on the ground referred to above in the body of the petition."
3. The petitioner was removed from service as a result of disciplinary inquiry on 31‑7‑1988. Therefore, the observations of the learned Service Tribunal that his resignation dated 3‑7‑1988 was accepted on 9‑7‑1988 with effect from 3‑8‑1988 i.e. after three days of his removal from the service and that once a Government servant submits his resignation, he cannot later came to the Court with the prayer that he was a victim of the circumstances and his resignation may not be accepted are contrary to the facts. The appeal was dismissed mainly on this ground. However, his punishment was reduced from termination to that of removal from service.
4. Once the petitioner was removed from service acceptance of his resignation with effect from 3‑8‑1988 does not appear to be legally sound. The Tribunal has ignored this aspect of the case. It requires consideration. Leave is granted. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. A.A./M‑1260/S Leave granted.