1988 PLP 1676 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHOKHAR — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAHORE GENERAL
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1676 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHOKHAR — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAHORE GENERAL |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1676 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 1676 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1676 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHOKHAR — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAHORE GENERAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 1988.
- Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3-4-1981 of the Service Tribunal in Appeal No.448/619 of 1979).
R.4(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Removal from service-- Non-issuance of formal charge-sheet--Consequence of- Petitioner removed from service for misconduct was found responsible for allowing theft of Government money kept in safe under his control--Plea that non-service of a formal charge-sheet had vitiated entire proceedings, repelled--No prejudice caused in the absence of a formal charge-sheet because during the course of inquiry petitioner knew precisely what the allegation against him was--Not being a fit case for grant of leave, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner has been removed from service after a regular inquiry wherein he had the opportunity to defend himself. His appeal before the Service Tribunal failed on merits. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that as he was not served with a formal charge‑sheet, the entire proceedings stood vitiated.
3. We are not impressed with this contention. The petitioner has not been able to show in what particular manner he has been prejudiced in the absence of a formal charge‑sheet. The allegation against him was that he had allowed a sum of Rs.1,18,375.58 to be stolen from the safe, the keys of which were in his possession. During the course of inquiry he knew precisely what the allegation against him was. He was unable to satisfactorily show that he was not in any way responsible for the theft. We, therefore, do not think that the is a fit case where leave should be granted. The petition is dismissed. M.I. /M‑514/S Petition dismissed.