1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD GULZAR Versus CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST and others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, C.J. and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GULZAR Versus CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Naimuddin, C.J. and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD GULZAR Versus CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Akram Shahbaz for Petitioner Zaheeruddin Khan for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
Karachi Port Trust Act (VI of 1886)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 23(1)‑‑Retirement from service‑‑Employee challenging such retirement on ground that same having been ordered by Chairman and not by Board of Trustees, was illegal‑‑Validity of‑ retirement‑ Order of retirement itself stated that Board of Trustees vide their resolution had sanctioned compulsory retirement of employee, from service‑‑Such retirement of employee being in accordance with requirement of law and there being no illegality therein, held, could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, C.J.‑‑The petitioner's grievance is that he has been retired from K.P.T. service in contravention of section 23(1) of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 inasmuch as that retirement could be ordered by the Board of Trustees and not by the Chairman as the petitioner was drawing salary of Rupees more than
500. In paragraph (8) of the comments, the respondents 2 and 3 have explained as follows:‑ "
8. As regards para 8 of the petition it is stated that the Enquiry Officer had proved the charges levelled in the charge‑sheet beyond any doubt. The KPT Board of Trustees while approving the report of Enquiry Officer also approved the show‑cause notice to be served upon the petitioner. The show‑cause notice was issued to him under this Office Letter No.T/Estt/2439, dated 22‑5‑1979 and his reply dated 18‑6‑1979 to the show‑cause notice was placed before the board. The Board did not find the reply to the show‑cause notice as satisfactory and under their Resolution No.162, dated 29‑8‑1979 sanctioned the compulsory retirement of Mr. Muhammad Gulzar, Senior Outdoor Clerk from KPT service with immediate effect." Further, the order itself states that the Board vide their Resolution No.162 dated 29‑8‑1979 have sanctioned the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the K.P.T. service. We, therefore, find that the retirement is in accordance with section 23(1) of the Act and there is no illegality about it. A. A. /M‑353/ K Petition dismissed.