1990 PLP 995 (SCMR)
Dairy Development Department and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 995 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Dairy Development Department and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 995 (SCMR) (Dairy Development Department and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4‑6‑1987 passed in Appeal No. 706/566 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Civil servant proceeded against departmentally for overstaying his leave ex‑Pakistan and was compulsorily retired from service‑‑ Service Tribunal set aside compulsory retirement on the ground that Authority while serving a show‑cause notice had failed to mention a single reason for not accepting recommendations of Enquiry Officer as also of Authorized officer exonerating him‑‑‑Factual aspect of the case had received full attention of the authorities who were called upon to look into the case and no question of law of public importance as envisaged by the Constitutional provision having arisen in the case to call for further examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was Assistant Research Officer in the Veterinary Research Institute and he was proceeded against departmentally for over‑staying his leave ex‑Pakistan from 1‑11‑1982 to 19‑5‑1983 when the rejection of the leave was conveyed to him by a letter dated 18‑5‑1982. The Enquiry Officer exonerated him. The competent authority after serving a show‑cause notice and hearing him ordered his compulsory retirement from service from 1‑11‑1980. The Service Tribunal set aside the compulsory retirement holding as hereunder:‑‑ "The Enquiry Officer after making elaborate inquiry came to the conclusion that the appellant's case was genuine and exonerated him from the charge of wilful absence. Furthermore what I find in this case is that even the Authorised Officer agreed with the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the appellant, finding his case as genuine. This being the facts of the case, the ratio decidendi of this ruling of the Supreme Court of .Pakistan will be fully applicable to the case of the appellant. The Authority in this case while serving a show‑cause notice has failed to mention a single reason for not accepting recommendations of the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Authorised Officer, therefore, the impugned order so passed by him could not be sustained. The result is I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs:"
3. We find that the factual aspect of the case has received full attention of the authorities who were called upon to look into the case and no question of law of public importance as envisaged by the constitutional provision arises in the case to call for further examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./G‑234/S Leave refused.