1989 PLP 332 (SCMR)
Sh. MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER (DISTRIBUTION), WAPDA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 332 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER (DISTRIBUTION), WAPDA and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 332 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 332 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 332 (SCMR) (Sh. MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER (DISTRIBUTION), WAPDA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jaffri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22-7-1987 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 3(L)/86 (old) -337(R)/8(i(new)). West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978
R. 5-A--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)--Absence from duty--Abscondence/desertion Interpretation of R. 5-A of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978--Limitation Question arising whether R. 5-A of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 permitted only a warning as punishment to petitioner even if facts alleged against him with regard to absence from duty were accepted--Leave to appeal granted, inter alia, to consider contention of respondent that if it was a case of mere absence, it might be correct that only a warning could be administered, but it was a case of abscondence/desertion and that petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal was time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jaffri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. On an earlier hearing notice was issued to the respondent ( WAPDA); for the examination of the question; whether Rule 5-A of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees ( E & D ) Rules, 1978 permitted only a warning as punishment to the petitioner even on acceptance of the alleged against him, with regard to the charge of absence from duty. The learned counsel for the respondent having appeared has contended that if it was a case of mere absence, it might be correct that only a warning could be administered; but, as argued by him, it was the case of abscondence/desertion. He has also raised the objection that the a peal of the petitioner before the Federal Service Tribunal was time‑barred. After hearing both the learned counsel, we consider. it a fit case for examination of the above‑noted questions as well as other questions raised in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly, is granted. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. M.I./M‑582/S Leave granted.