2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another Versus UMAR-UD-DIN
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another Versus UMAR-UD-DIN |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another Versus UMAR-UD-DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 2005.
- 2. It is contended by Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General Sindh that respondent is involved in the embezzlement of Rs. 1,10,85,834.80 and that embezzlement according to him took place during 1994 to 1997 while respondent was posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional District Magistrate, Jacobabad. He referred to show-cause notice, dated 5-3-2002 whereby embezzlement has been shown from 1991 to 1995-1996. He also referred to another Notification, dated 5-3-2002 wherein it was mentioned that the respondent has retried on attaining the age of superannuation on 29-1-2002.
- 3. Though heard at length, but the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners is hit by Rule 1.8 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules, whereby it is mandatory that departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of Government pensioners. In the instant case, it has been admitted that no such proceedings have yet commenced.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-8-2005 of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, in Appeal No.88 of 2003).
R. 1.8
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Departmental proceedings--Case of petitioners was hit by R.1.8 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules, whereby it was mandatory that Departmental proceedings would not be instituted after more than d year from date of retirement of government pensioners
No such proceedings had commenced in the present case
Petitioners had not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in impugned judgment
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12-8-2005 passed by the learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, in Appeal No.88 of 2003 filed by respondent Umaruddin whereby the said appeal was accepted and the impugned orders, dated 2-1-2003 and 16-6-2003 passed by the petitioners were set aside.
2. It is contended by Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General Sindh that respondent is involved in the embezzlement of Rs. 1,10,85,834.80 and that embezzlement according to him took place during 1994 to 1997 while respondent was posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional District Magistrate, Jacobabad. He referred to show-cause notice, dated 5-3-2002 whereby embezzlement has been shown from 1991 to 1995-1996. He also referred to another Notification, dated 5-3-2002 wherein it was mentioned that the respondent has retried on attaining the age of superannuation on 29-1-2002.
3. Though heard at length, but the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners is hit by Rule 1.8 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules, whereby it is mandatory that departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of Government pensioners. In the instant case, it has been admitted that no such proceedings have yet commenced.
4. Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./C-1/SC Petition dismissed.