1989 PLP 1742 (SCMR)
AMJAD FAIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1742 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD FAIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1742 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1742 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1742 (SCMR) (AMJAD FAIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 8‑1‑1986 passed in Appeal No.711(I) of 1982). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petitioner was negligent in handling the accounts of the Department and he also failed to have proper control over the budgetary provisions of the Department‑‑Service Tribunal set aside order of petitioner's removal and instead he was retired from service‑‑Order of Service Tribunal being unexceptionable, inasmuch as the petitioner was admittedly negligent in performance of his duties, interference was declined.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 8‑1‑1986.
2. The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Director (Accounts) under the WAPDA. Certain allegations were levelled against him and he was required to explain his conduct. His reply was considered by the Committee constituted to probe into the affairs and ultimately his removal from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act was ordered His appeal before the Tribunal partly succeeded to the extent that the' order of his removal was set aside and instead he was retired from service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order of the Tribunal. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the finding of the Tribunal we are of the p view that the same is unexceptionable in that the petitioner was admittedly negligent in handling the accounts of the Department and that he also failed to have proper control over the budgetary provisions of the Dapartment.
4. Thus Finding no force in the petition, the same is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑534/S Petition dismissed.