1990 PLP 535 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 535 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 535 (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 535 (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: 1990 PLP 535 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 2‑11‑1980 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Service Appeal No.179 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Departmental Authority partly accepting civil servant's appeal changed the penalty from dismissal to removal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal‑‑‑Civil servant's contention that there was no evidence of defalcation against him and as such penalty imposed upon him was entirely uncalled for, not warranted by record‑‑‑Service Tribunal, having examined the entire record had noticed the civil servant's admission wherein he had admitted that he had deposited the amount in the wrong head of account and that he made the payment to specified persons, was sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him‑‑‑Service Tribunal's finding did not call for interference‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was serving as Sub‑Accountant in the Tehsil Office at Okara. After a regular departmental inquiry on the allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities, he was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, Multan Division. He preferred a departmental appeal which was partly accepted by the Secretary in the Finance Department inasmuch as the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to removal from service. He then filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that there was no evidence of defalcation against the petitioner and as such the penalty imposed on him was entirely uncalled for. It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal examined the entire record and found:‑‑ "We feel that the appellant's admission that he deposited the money in the wrong head of account and that he made the payments to Shamshad Ali and Abdul Qayyum, is sufficient to warrant the disciplinary action taken against him. Moreover, the fact that the powers of attorney were not to be found and that there was no mention about their existence in the relevant record, lends credence to the allegation that the appellant's actions were not above board. That he acted without authority is established beyond doubt. If there was any extenuating circumstance its benefit has already accrued to him in‑the form of modification of the punishment from dismissal to removal from service by respondent No.2." In view of the above findings of the learned Tribunal, no case for interference by this Court has been made out. The petition is dismissed. AA./M‑976/S Petition dismissed.