1989 PLP 1244 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER GUGERA DIVISION, SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1244 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER GUGERA DIVISION, SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1244 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1244 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, 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: 1989 PLP 1244 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER GUGERA DIVISION, SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 12‑1‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, m Appeal No.337 of 1981). ‑‑‑ Removal from service‑‑Absence from duty without leave for more than a year‑ Charge‑sheet was drawn up and sent to address of civil servant under registered cover which remained undelivered‑‑Notice was published in two dailies but still civil servant did not care to respond to that‑‑Department, faced with this situation, removed the civil servant from service‑‑No satisfactory explanation for absence from duty was given‑‑Order of removal from service did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Departmental Authorities, thus, were justified in ordering removal from service of such civil servant.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was serving as a canal patwari. He remained absent from duty without leave from 20‑12‑79 to 12‑1‑
81. This was treated as misconduct and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A charge‑sheet was drawn up and sent to his address under registered cover but it remained undelivered. A notice was published in two Urdu Dailies but still the petitioner did not care to respond to it. Faced with this situation the department removed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of removal before the Superintending Engineer but it was dismissed. He then tiled an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. That too remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that the order of removal suffers from any infirmity. There is no satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's absence from duty for more than one year. The departmental authorities were therefore justified in removing him from service. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.BA./M‑898/S Petition dismissed.