1991 PLP 383 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BINYAMIN — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 383 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BINYAMIN — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 383 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 383 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 383 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BINYAMIN — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 191h February, 1990.
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-4-1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No.2(R) of 1988).
Art.212(3)
Dismissal for misconduct
Civil servant's departmental appeal as also his service appeal Wore Service Tribunal were dismissed as time-barred-- Civil servant was unable to point out as to how Service Tribunal's judgment was violative of any provision of law or statutory rules
Civil Servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was admittedly time-barred
Civil servant's misconduct even on merits, stood proved
Concurrent finding on question of misconduct was recorded by Enquiry Officer as well as by Service Tribunal
Petition being without merit was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11‑4‑1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No.2(R)/88 riled by the petitioner, dismissing the same against the order of his dismissal dated 6‑5‑1987.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Office, Gujar Khan Sub‑Division of Respondent No.1 (i.e. Wapda). He was charge‑sheeted for ante‑dating thirteen applications in the Service Connection Register in order to give an undue priority to the said applications and for deliberately accepting incorrect addresses of the applicants, that is, instead of village Dhoke Sher Alam the village Lulyani. The Enquiry Officer after providing full opportunity to the petitioner recorded his finding in the affirmative as to the charge. Upon receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner by the above order dated 6‑5‑1987. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal on 30‑8‑1987, which was beyond the prescribed time of limitation of 60 days. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Tribunal after the expiry of the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the above petition for leave.
3. Raja Mohammad Akram, learned A.S.C. appearing for the petitioner, was unable to point out as to how the Tribunal's impugned judgment is violative of any provision of law or the statutory rules. Admittedly the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time. Even on merits the factum that the petitioner had deliberately ante‑dated the above thirteen applications and deliberately accepted the incorrect addresses with the motive to provide benefit of the electric connections to the applicants which they were not entitled to, stand proved. There is concurrent finding on the above question of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Tribunal. The petition has no merits and leave is accordingly refused. A.A./M‑1286/S Leave refused.