1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FAIZ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | FAIZ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 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: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and 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)) (FAIZ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Punishment of reduction in pay
Civil servant a police officer was awarded punishment of reduction in his pay on charge of misconduct and inefficiency which he showed in not having the eye-witness joined in identification parade which was to be conducted in a criminal case
Evidence on record had fully proved that civil servant was not responsible for absence of eye-witness and it was also established that no material damage had really been done due to absence of eye-witness as conviction was recorded in the case
Charges of misconduct and inefficiency on basis of which punishment of reduction in pay was awarded to civil servant, having not been proved against him in absolute terms, orders of Authorities were set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 117/845 of 1988, decided on 6th March, 1990. Civil service
Punishment of reduction in pay
Civil servant a police officer was awarded punishment of reduction in his pay on charge of misconduct and inefficiency which he showed in not having the eye-witness joined in identification parade which was to be conducted in a criminal case
Evidence on record had fully proved that civil servant was not responsible for absence of eye-witness and it was also established that no material damage had really been done due to absence of eye-witness as conviction was recorded in the case
Charges of misconduct and inefficiency on basis of which punishment of reduction in pay was awarded to civil servant, having not been proved against him in absolute terms, orders of Authorities were set aside. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1990.