1988 PLP 1099 (SCMR)
FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKIAM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1099 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslan Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKIAM‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1099 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1099 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslan Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1099 (SCMR) (FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKIAM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Maajid Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From, the judgment dated 17‑9‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.198/738 of 1986). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence, Service Tribunal's decision setting aside order of respondent's removal from service, challenged‑‑Impugned order being based upon re-appraisal of evidence which was led against respondent during the course of departmental enquiry and no substantial question of law of public importance arising for consideration of Supreme Court leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent was serving as junior clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Faisalabad. After a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal re‑examined the evidence and held that the charges framed against him were not established. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal and set aside the order of his removal from service. The department concerned seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal. The order of the learned Tribunal is based upon re‑appraisal of evidence which was led against the respondent during the course of the departmental inquiry. No substantial question of law of public importance arises for consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is refused. M.I./D‑19/S Petition dismissed.