1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus BOTANIST, OILSEEDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus BOTANIST, OILSEEDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus BOTANIST, OILSEEDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Departmental enquiry‑‑Charge‑‑‑Non compliance of transfer order‑Record proving charge‑‑Plea that enquiry was void because no witness was produced by prosecution‑‑Witness in such enquiry, held, not essential.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑Mohammad Hanif, appellant, was appointed as Fieldman in the year 1961. On 13th November, 1978 the appellant fell ill. Oilseeds Botanist ordered the transfer of the appellant from Faisalabad to Khanpur. On 2nd January, 1978, the Oilseeds Botanist, Faisalabad, passed the order of suspension of the appellant 00; the allegation of non‑compliance of transfer orders and absence from duties. The appellant was served with a charge‑sheet on 24th January, 1978. The appellant submitted his reply on 9th February, 1978. An enquiry was held in which the appellant participated under protest. On 29th March, 1978 the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice. The appellant was dismissed from service on 16th April, 1978. The depart mental appeal to the Director‑General was also dismissed.
2. Both the parties have been heard. The appellant has challenged the order of dismissal as being illegal, void and therefore liable to be set aside. The appellant has argued that since no written transfer order was given the question of misconduct does not arise and the Enquiry Officer appointed was partial and the prosecution failed to produce any witnesses.
3. So far as the question of misconduct is concerned, evidence has been produced which shows that the appellant was in the know of the transfer order, since he made a representation against his transfer immediately on the next date of the transfer order. As far as the enquiry being held by a partial officer and the prosecution not producing any witness, the appellant has not been able to show any mala fides on, the part of the Enquiry Officer, and in such an enquiry witnesses are no essential. The contentions of the appellant have no force and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.