1989 PLP 947 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AHMAD SHAFFI — Petitioner Versus S.E. IRRIGATION (HEADQUARTER), LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 947 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Qadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMAD SHAFFI — Petitioner Versus S.E. IRRIGATION (HEADQUARTER), LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (EMciency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 947 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (EMciency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 947 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Qadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 947 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AHMAD SHAFFI — Petitioner Versus S.E. IRRIGATION (HEADQUARTER), LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sapdhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sapdhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu, Advocate for the petitioner, has been heard. He has not been able to point out any error of law or procedure committed by the departmental authority for imposing the penalty upon him. The Service Tribunal in fact, has taken a sympathetic view of the matter and granted partial relief.
Headnotes / Summary
R.7-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Major penalty- Authorities accepting recommendations of Inquiry Officer imposed major penalty on civil servant for recovery of amount suffered by Government--No error of law or procedure shown to have been committed by departmental authorities for imposing said penalty--Service Tribunal had already taken a sympathetic view of ratter and granted partial relief--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑A departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner on the allegation that the Government had suffered a loss of Rs.30,840 in connection with the shortage of the stores resulting from his negligence. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner responsible for the following shortages: (i) 209 Gallons light Diesel Oil @ Rs.4 per Gallon. = Rs.836.00 (ii) Shortage of fixture (doors and windows) = Rs,7,625:00 Total = Rs.8,461.00 Eventually, the Authority accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty (under Rule 7‑A of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975) for the recovery of Rs.8,461 suffered by the Government. The Service Tribunal found that the shortage of 2119 Gallons light Diesal Oil amounting to Rs.836 could not be attributed to the petitioner but the shortage in connection with the fixture (doors and windows) amounting to Rs.7,625 has been satisfactorily established before the administrative authority and, accordingly, partially accepted the appeal holding that only a sum of Rs.7,625 i.e. loss suffered in connection with the shortage on account of the fixture (doors & windows) etc. could be recovered from him. The petitioner has now moved this Court seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu, Advocate for the petitioner, has been heard. He has not been able to point out any error of law or procedure committed by the departmental authority for imposing the penalty upon him. The Service Tribunal in fact, has taken a sympathetic view of the matter and granted partial relief. No further interference is possible. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.