1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (S&GA), WAPDA and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | S.M. Ishaque and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (S&GA), WAPDA and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: S.M. Ishaque and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (S&GA), WAPDA and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.
- Yasmin Saigal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil servant who was charged with grave mis conduct and breach of trust; was dismissed from service after holding enquiry against him
Before service of charge-sheet on civil servant, his statement was recorded by Security Officer of employer in which civil servant had voluntarily confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness with a promise that he would never commit any such mistake in future
Statement of civil servant made by him in response to questions put by, Inquiry Officer, though was not recorded by Inquiry Officer in usual manner, but nothing was available in such statement to indicate that answers given by civil servant were not voluntary or that he was intimidated to make those answers
Statement of civil servant clearly showed that questions put by Inquiry Officer to civil servant and answers recorded by Inquiry Officer were read out to civil servant who admitted their correctness-- Despite certain irregularity in recording statement of civil servant, material brought on record had fully established that civil servant was guilty of offence alleged to have been committed by him
No evidence of alleged mala fides of employer or Enquiry Officer or intimidation had been brought on record by civil servant
Charges against civil servant having been established to the satisfaction of competent Authority, order dismissing civil servant from service could not be said to be arbitrary or capricious.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 196(L) of 1988, decided on 26th November, 1991.
Civil servant who was charged with grave mis conduct and breach of trust; was dismissed from service after holding enquiry against him
Before service of charge-sheet on civil servant, his statement was recorded by Security Officer of employer in which civil servant had voluntarily confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness with a promise that he would never commit any such mistake in future
Statement of civil servant made by him in response to questions put by, Inquiry Officer, though was not recorded by Inquiry Officer in usual manner, but nothing was available in such statement to indicate that answers given by civil servant were not voluntary or that he was intimidated to make those answers
Statement of civil servant clearly showed that questions put by Inquiry Officer to civil servant and answers recorded by Inquiry Officer were read out to civil servant who admitted their correctness-- Despite certain irregularity in recording statement of civil servant, material brought on record had fully established that civil servant was guilty of offence alleged to have been committed by him
No evidence of alleged mala fides of employer or Enquiry Officer or intimidation had been brought on record by civil servant
Charges against civil servant having been established to the satisfaction of competent Authority, order dismissing civil servant from service could not be said to be arbitrary or capricious. Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant. Yasmin Saigal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1991.