1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM YASIN Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | GHULAM YASIN Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM YASIN Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleh Siddiqui for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
R.5(1)
Deputy Director, who was Authority in respect of civil servant at time departmental proceedings were initiated against him, assuming powers of authorised officer, himself conducted those proceedings without specific and proper delegation of such powers
Duty of Deputy Director as Authority in case, was to appoint an authorized officer and then direct him to proceed against civil servant in accordance with law-- Provisions of Rule 5(1) of Rules, 1975 relating to conduct of departmental proceedings having admittedly been violated, orders of Authorities were set aside being void and case was remanded to conduct proceedings against civil servant strictly in accordance with procedure laid down in the Rules.
Judgment & Decree
DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another Appeal No. 260 of 1989, decided on 19th August, 1990.
R.5(1)
Deputy Director, who was Authority in respect of civil servant at time departmental proceedings were initiated against him, assuming powers of authorised officer, himself conducted those proceedings without specific and proper delegation of such powers
Duty of Deputy Director as Authority in case, was to appoint an authorized officer and then direct him to proceed against civil servant in accordance with law-- Provisions of Rule 5(1) of Rules, 1975 relating to conduct of departmental proceedings having admittedly been violated, orders of Authorities were set aside being void and case was remanded to conduct proceedings against civil servant strictly in accordance with procedure laid down in the Rules. Muhammad Saleh Siddiqui for Appellant. A.G. Humayun D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1990.