1990 PLP 1470 (SCMR)
Dr.Capt. MUNAWAR TAHIR HUSSAIN‑ ‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Health Department,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1470 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr.Capt. MUNAWAR TAHIR HUSSAIN‑ ‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Health Department, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1470 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1470 (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 1470 (SCMR) (Dr.Capt. MUNAWAR TAHIR HUSSAIN‑ ‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Health Department,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 19‑5‑1985 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No.671/1052 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appear‑Service Tribunal based its decision on report of Enquiry Officer after considering defence of petitioner at length‑‑Case being not fit to be interfered with, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was posted as Medical Officer, New Central Jail, Multan. On 23‑4‑1982, a female convict Mst.Martha suddenly fell ill and remained unconscious from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. when she expired. The petitioner was informed about her condition but he failed to attend her. Consequently, he was served with a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. As a result of these proceedings, he was compulsorily retired from service. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the inquiry officer completed the proceedings without notice to him and at his back. This contention was also raised before the Tribunal but was rejected with the following observations:‑ "The perusal of the said report shows that the Enquiry Officer was not inimical against the appellant, the appellant had no justification to show lack of trust in him and keep away from proceedings and than make a statement that he was proceeded ex parte". In view of this factual position, we find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
3. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the observations of a Magistrate who was appointed to hold an inquest into the death of the convict. This is no doubt true but a perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal leaves no room for doubt that it based its decision on the report of the Enquiry Officer after considering the defence of the petitioner at length. We, therefore, do not think that this is a fit case for interference. Leave is refused, H.B.T./M‑1009/S Leave refused.