2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, MULTAN and another
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Hamid Ali Mirza, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, MULTAN and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Hamid Ali Mirza, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, MULTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 29-7-2002 in Appeal No. 140 of 1994 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore).
Art. 212(3)
Imposition of major penalty by the Authority when the authorized officer had not recommended the same
after having issued notice for personal hearing to the civil servant had given just and sound reasons its order for disagreeing with the authorized officer after considering the relevant documents and defence of the civil servant
Authority was competent to differ with the proposed recommendation of authorized order and could impose major penalty, which in its opinion was considered to be legal in view of the evidence on record
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director Food, Punjab and others 1992 SCMR 1864; Qazi Khalilur Rehman and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 713 and Sh. Abdul Waheed v. Chief Secretary, Punjab 1985 PLC (C.S.) 886 ref.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority was not competent to impose major penalty when the authorized officer did not recommend the same.
3. We do not find substance in the said contention considering that the Authority is competent to differ with the proposed recommendation of authorised officer and could impose major penalty, which in his opinion is considered to be legal in view of the evidence on record upon the delinquent officer. It may be observed that after receiving the report dated 11-4-1989 of the authorized officer in respect of the petitioner the Authority issued notice for personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering relevant documents and defence of the petitioner gave sound reasons for not agreeing with the authorized officer in his order dated 19-9-1993 against which appeal was also preferred before the Director Food which too was rejected. We are of the view that Authority was quite competent in law to differ with regard to the authorized officer in the circumstances of the case as the Authority has given just and sound reasons in his order for disagreeing with the authorized officer after considering the relevant documents and defence of the petitioner. Reference may be made to (i) Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director Food, Punjab and others (1992 SCMR 1864 at page 1869), (ii) Qazi Khalilur Rehman and others v. Secretary. Ministry of Railways and others (1994 PLC (C.S.) 713), (iii) Sh. Abdul Waheed v. The Chief Secretary, Punjab (1985 PLC (C.S.) 886). No, other plea has been raised.
4. We find that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, therefore leave to appeal is declined and, the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./S-322/S Petition dis