1989 PLP 1470 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD JAFFAR TOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1470 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAFFAR TOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1470 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1470 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman 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 1470 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD JAFFAR TOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Ullah Khan Lilla, Advocate Supreme‑ Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988.
- Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan Lilla, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not a fit case for proceeding under Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and further that on facts the petitioner had a plausible explanation which deserved consideration and approval.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12‑12‑1983 passed in Appeal No.103/148 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Civil servant was charge‑sheeted and heard by the Authorised Officer on whose recommendation he was compulsorily retired from service‑ Civil servant exhausted departmental remedies and approached the Service Tribunal but did not succeed‑‑Question raised by the petitioner before Supreme Court that "on facts petitioner had a plausible explanation which deserved consideration and approval" being primarily that of fact, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a Sub‑Engineer, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against his compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner was charge‑sheeted on four grounds. He submitted his reply. He was heard by the Authorised Officer on whose recommendation he was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 16‑12‑1981. He exhausted the departmental remedies, approached the Service Tribunal but did not succeed. On facts the Tribunal held as hereunder:‑ "After reading between the lines the reply of the appellant and other relevant record we have come to the conclusion that the appellant did remove the articles mentioned in the show‑cause notice from the store in the early hours in the morning of 9‑9‑1981. Now the only question for determining is whether he did so bona fidely or for the purpose of misappropriation. We can easily repel the contention of the appellant that he did so in the interest of the Government work. It is very strange. that wife of the appellant had admittedly come to him at 11‑30 p.m. on 8‑9‑1981 and they wanted to go to Gujrat at 4‑00 a.m. on 9‑9‑1981. The Tribunal also found that the Authorised Officer was justified in proceeding against him under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan Lilla, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not a fit case for proceeding under Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and further that on facts the petitioner had a plausible explanation which deserved consideration and approval. The questions raised by the petitioner are primarily of facts. We also find hat the factual aspect of the case has received full consideration from the Tribunal. No question of law arises which may require further examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.B.A./M‑827/S. Leave refused.