1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL KARIM KHAN Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM KHAN Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and 2 others |
| 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 Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL KARIM KHAN Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain, DA. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on account of charges that he fraudulently and dishonestly got registered agreements of sale of property; that he was in habit of avoiding orders of his senior officers; that he was in habit of submitting fake applications against his senior officers; that he had bad habit to instigate public against Police officers and that he created harassment and tortured respectable of locality
Civil servant after submitting his reply to charge-sheet disassociated himself with enquiry as he had no faith in Enquiry Officer-- Enquiry Officer conducted proceedings ex parte and after recording statements of prosecution witnesses submitted his report in which civil servant was found guilty of all charges
Authority accepted findings of Enquiry Officer and dismissed civil servant from service
Enquiry Officer had based his findings solely on oral evidence of witnesses as no documentary evidence was produced by any of the witnesses with regard to charge of fraudulent registration of agreement of sale of property
No effort whatsoever was made by Enquiry Officer to analyse facts before him, but he simply gave a gist of evidence in his report
Oral evidence alone and that too of interested witnesses was not sufficient to establish that charge unless corroborated by independent witnesses and documentary evidence
Allegation of fraud in circumstances was not proved against civil servant
Evidence in support of other charges against civil servant, also had not been corroborated by independent witnesses or documentary evidence but entire evidence recorded by Enquiry Officer was either unreliable or of no consequence
Copy of report of Investigating Officer which was made a basis for conducting regular enquiry, was not supplied to civil servant despite civil servant had specifically asked for it
Civil servant was not called to appear before Authority to put up his defence and a copy of formal enquiry report was also not supplied to him before orders for dismissal were passed by Authority against civil servant
All charges except one which also was proved partly, had not been proved against civil servant-- Order dismissing civil servant passed by Authority was set aside and he was reinstated in service. Muhammad Sadiq v. Divisional Forest Officer, Lah. PLD. 1978 Lah. 972 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 434 of 1980, decided on 30th April, 1991.
Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on account of charges that he fraudulently and dishonestly got registered agreements of sale of property; that he was in habit of avoiding orders of his senior officers; that he was in habit of submitting fake applications against his senior officers; that he had bad habit to instigate public against Police officers and that he created harassment and tortured respectable of locality
Civil servant after submitting his reply to charge-sheet disassociated himself with enquiry as he had no faith in Enquiry Officer-- Enquiry Officer conducted proceedings ex parte and after recording statements of prosecution witnesses submitted his report in which civil servant was found guilty of all charges
Authority accepted findings of Enquiry Officer and dismissed civil servant from service
Enquiry Officer had based his findings solely on oral evidence of witnesses as no documentary evidence was produced by any of the witnesses with regard to charge of fraudulent registration of agreement of sale of property
No effort whatsoever was made by Enquiry Officer to analyse facts before him, but he simply gave a gist of evidence in his report
Oral evidence alone and that too of interested witnesses was not sufficient to establish that charge unless corroborated by independent witnesses and documentary evidence
Allegation of fraud in circumstances was not proved against civil servant
Evidence in support of other charges against civil servant, also had not been corroborated by independent witnesses or documentary evidence but entire evidence recorded by Enquiry Officer was either unreliable or of no consequence
Copy of report of Investigating Officer which was made a basis for conducting regular enquiry, was not supplied to civil servant despite civil servant had specifically asked for it
Civil servant was not called to appear before Authority to put up his defence and a copy of formal enquiry report was also not supplied to him before orders for dismissal were passed by Authority against civil servant
All charges except one which also was proved partly, had not been proved against civil servant-- Order dismissing civil servant passed by Authority was set aside and he was reinstated in service. Muhammad Sadiq v. Divisional Forest Officer, Lah. PLD. 1978 Lah. 972 ref. Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, DA. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991.