1990 PLP 1503 (SCMR)
NAZAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD DIVISION
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1503 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD DIVISION |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1503 (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 1503 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1503 (SCMR) (NAZAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD DIVISION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Dadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989.
- 3. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the same grounds for advancing the case of the petitioner as were taken note of by the Service Tribunal and by the departmental authorities.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 6‑3‑1986 passed in Appeal No.565/277 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant, a Patwari was proceeded against for having entered, put up and got attested `Mutation' whereby valuable property was transferred to private party‑‑‑Record showed that civil servant had been derelict in not discharging his duties in the manner in which same were to be discharged but in a manner against the requirement of law and likely to profit a party who but for the act of civil servant, did not deserve it‑‑‑‑Finding of fact and punishment awarded both were sustainable on material on record‑‑‑No ground having been made out for further examination of questions involved, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, formerly a Revenue Patwari, seeks (cave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 6‑3‑1986 whereby his service appeal against order of dismissal from service, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules for having entered, put up and got attested the Mutation whereby valuable property was transferred to a private party. The defence of the petitioner was that it was on the written orders received from the, superior officers and the attestation of the mutation itself was done by his seniors and he was in no way involved with it. The competent authority and the departmental appellate authority examined the plea of the petitioner and held the charge proved and dismissed him from service. The Service Tribunal examined the entire background and upheld the order of his dismissal from service.
3. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the same grounds for advancing the case of the petitioner as were taken note of by the Service Tribunal and by the departmental authorities.
4. We have examined the charges and the documents on which they are based. It appears that there was an order of the High Court which had to be given effect to and instead of complying with that order of the Court the petitioner selected the area indicated in the application made by one of the parties to the litigation for the purposes of entering and ultimately getting registered a mutation of transfer of land. That mutation was ultimately reviewed and the damage done reversed. Nevertheless the petitioner had been derelict in not discharging his duties in the manner in which it was to be discharged but in a manner against the requirement of law and likely to profit a party which, but for the act of the Patwari, was undeserving of it. The finding of fact and the punishment awarded both are sustainable on the material produced before us. No ground is made out for further examination of the questions involved. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./N‑221/S Leave refused.