1990 PLP 1500 (SCMR)
REHMAT ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1500 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION, |
| Primary Law | Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1500 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1500 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1500 (SCMR) (REHMAT ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order, dated 17‑11‑1985 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.172(R) of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Misappropriation of funds‑‑‑Penalty of dismissal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that Service Tribunal, while dealing with the case against another civil servant on a similar charge and on similar evidence, giving him the benefit of doubt, converted his penalty of dismissal, into compulsory retirement; that petitioner civil servant was entitled to the same treatment; and that Service Tribunal had not passed consistent orders in respect of similar matter. Muhammad Arif Siddiqui v. Government of Pakistan 1988 SCMR 673 and Abdur Rehman Babar v. N.‑W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary, Government of N.‑W.F.P. 1989 SCMR 928 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was served with a charge‑sheet on 3‑10‑1988 alleging that a sum of Rs.53,104.93 had been found short in cash during the petitioner's tenure as Cashier in Pakistan Ordnance Factory. An inquiry was conducted 'and it was held that the amount had been misappropriated during the petitioner's tenure. The petitioner was called upon to deposit the said amount. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge‑sheet. The petitioner was served with another notice, dated 31‑10‑1984 that on further investigation it had been revealed that a sum of Rs.1,34,075.58 had been found short in cash. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner was dismissed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal but without any result. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 17‑11‑1985.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a similar charge against one Ashiq Hussain, the Tribunal while dealing with his appeal, had observed that there was no evidence that the shortage occurred due to misappropriation, and giving him the benefit of doubt, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was converted into compulsory retirement. According to him. in the petitioner's case as well there is no evidence that the shortage alleged against him was on account of misappropriation or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment as was given to Ashiq Hussain. It has further been contended that no inquiry was conducted in the present case and no evidence was led in support of the charge and that on the basis of the cross‑examination of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge against him. Lastly, it is contended A that the Tribunal has not passed consistent orders in respect of two similar matters. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Arif Siddiqui v. Government of Pakistan (1988 SCMR 673), and Abdur Rehman Babar v. N.‑W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary Govt. of N.‑W.F.P. (1989 SCMR 928).
3. Leave is granted. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. A.A./R‑147/S Leave granted.