1990 PLP 926 (SCMR)
TAJ MUHAMMAD, EX‑SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1990 PLP 926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD, EX‑SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 926 (SCMR) (TAJ MUHAMMAD, EX‑SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 20‑8‑1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. 183(P)/1989 & 184(P)/1989). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner contended that punishment was awarded to him by following shorter procedure wherein requirement of an "enquiry" was dispensed with, whereas punitive action against him was. possible only after observing full‑fledged enquiry where petitioner had an opportunity to disprove factual allegations levelled against him and it could not be short circuited by adopting shorter procedure‑‑‑Question raised by petitioner being of a considerable general public importance, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of both these petitions as the petitioner in both the matters is one and the same person and the questions raised by him in the said petitions are similar. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner has been ordered by following the shorter procedure wherein the requirement of an "enquiry' was dispensed with and action taken merely after service of the statement of allegations on the accused‑officer, obtaining his reply and giving him a personal hearing when in Ill c circumstances of this case the allegations made against the accused‑officer being of a factual nature, which were being controverted, could only be established after a full enquiry. The submission in other words is that in a case of this kind punitive action is possible only after observing the detailed procedure i.e. a full fledged enquiry wherein the accused officer has an opportunity to disprove the factual allegations levelled against him and it cannot be short circuited by adopting the shorter procedure. The question raised, inter alia, is of a considerable general public importance. Leave granted. The appeals in both the matters shall be made ready expeditiously. H.B.T./T‑61/S Leave granted.