1989 PLP 1178 (SCMR)
ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SARGODHA ELECTRICITY, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1178 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SARGODHA ELECTRICITY, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1178 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1178 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1178 (SCMR) (ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SARGODHA ELECTRICITY, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masod, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 17‑5‑1983 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad Camp at Lahore in Appeal No.1545(L)/1978. ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner an employee of WAPDA was caught red‑handed by raiding party while accepting bribe; he was suspended from service consequent upon the registration of a criminal case against him in which he was convicted by the Special Judge‑‑Petitioner preferred appeal which was accepted by High Court mainly on the ground that satisfactory corroboration was not available‑‑Consequent upon his acquittal, petitioner was re‑instated in service, however, he was denied by the Authority the full benefits of pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension‑‑Service Tribunal recorded a finding that petitioner's acquittal was not honourable‑‑Decision of Tribunal upholding the order of Authority did not suffer from any infirmity‑ Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority and was serving at the relevant time as Line Superintendent in Gujrat. He was caught red‑handed by a raiding party while accepting a bribe of Rs.200. He was suspended from service consequent upon the registration of a criminal case against him. He was convicted by the Special Judge (Central) Lahore. He preferred an appeal which was accepted by the High Court mainly on the ground that satisfactory corroboration was not available. Consequent upon his acquittal he was reinstated in service. However, he was denied by the Authority the full benefits of pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but that failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and also seen the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has recorded a fording that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable. That being so, its decision to uphold the order of the Authority does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./A‑476/S Petition dismissed.