1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE. AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others Versus Raja MUHAMMAD MASOOD (RETD.) D.F.O.
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE. AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others Versus Raja MUHAMMAD MASOOD (RETD.) D.F.O. |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE. AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others Versus Raja MUHAMMAD MASOOD (RETD.) D.F.O.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Sh., Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1995.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 7-2-1995 passed in Appeal No. 231 of 1992).
R. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Civil servant during his service failed to deduct income-tax from auction-purchaser of specified amount
Such amount after retirement of civil servant, was sought to be recovered by the Department out of gratuity which was payable to civil servant
Department did not dispute before Service Tribunal that no proceedings against civil servant were initiated by the Department under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, so as to give civil servant opportunity of hearing against proposed action or to determine his liability
No exception could, thus, be taken to the order of Service Tribunal setting aside recovery of alleged amount from civil servant and directing Departmental Authority to first take proceedings in accordance with law for determination of liability of civil servant to recover said amount--No question of law of public importance having arisen in the case, leave to appeal was declined in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 7‑2‑1995 whereby service appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of departmental authority directing recovery of a sum of Rs.39,306 out of his gratuity was set aside with further direction that the department may proceed against the respondent in accordance with the law subject to all just exceptions for determination of his liability. The respondent, who was serving as D.F.O., during the service allegedly failed to deduct income‑tax from the auction/purchaser amounting to Rs.39,
306. After his retirement this amount was sought to be recovered by tote department out of the gratuity which was payable to him. The case of the department before the learned Service Tribunal was that this amount was admitted by the respondent and therefore it could be legally recovered from gratuity payable to the respondent. It was however, not disputed before the learned Tribunal that no proceedings against the respondent were initiated by the department under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules so as to give the respondent an opportunity of hearing against the proposed action his liability. In these circumstances, no exception could be take, the Service Tribunal setting aside recovery of alleged amount from the departmental authority to first take proceedings in accordance with the law for determination of liability of the respondent to recover the above amount. No question of law of public importance, therefore, arises in this case and we are not declined to grant leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.