1990 PLP 907 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its
| Citation | 1990 PLP 907 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shajur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 907 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 907 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shajur 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 907 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989.
- 3. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the matter of legal rights and obligations, the Petitioner was governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance and as the charges were not framed and communicated against the Petitioner within the time specified in the Standing Orders Ordinance, he could not be prosecuted at all. On merits it is submitted that the Petitioner could not have done all that has been attributed to him because he was not as a meter-reader supposed to do any of those things.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 3-4-1986 passed in Appeal No.400(L)/1983).
S.O.15(4)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioner who was dismissed from service contended that he could not be prosecuted at all on charges levelled against him as those charges were not framed and communicated to him within time specified in Ordinance to which he was entitled
Such contention having not been raised by petitioner at any earlier stage could not be allowed to be raised at leave granting stage
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Art. 212(3)
Finding of fact concurrently recorded by Authorities and Tribunal after dealing with matter in question, not suffering from any infirmity, would not require examination at level of Supreme Court--Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.
The Petitioner an employee of Water and Power Development Authority, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 3-4-1986 whereby his service appeal against an order of dismissal from service passed on 10-12-1981 was rejected.
2. The Petitioner was dismissed from service on charges which were inquired into and the Petitioner was found guilty. His appeal was dismissed. He approached the Labour Court where the proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and ultimately he approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the punishment awarded to him by observing as hereunder:-- "All this clearly shows that the appellant was a party with Muhammad Anwar, ALM, who installed the meters without proper sanction and without recovering the dues from the consumers. The appellant being equally responsible for all these bunglings deserves the punishment he has been awarded. There being no merit in this appeal, we dismiss it with no order as to costs. Parties to be informed."
3. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the matter of legal rights and obligations, the Petitioner was governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance and as the charges were not framed and communicated against the Petitioner within the time specified in the Standing Orders Ordinance, he could not be prosecuted at all. On merits it is submitted that the Petitioner could not have done all that has been attributed to him because he was not as a meter-reader supposed to do any of those things.
4. The first ground now taken up by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been taken up at any earlier stage nor adjudicated upon. The very question of law raised has a basis in facts and unless the facts are resolved this question cannot be adjudicated upon. It is too late to raise such a question.
5. As regards the second ground, a finding of fact has been recorded not only by the departmental authorities but also by the Tribunal dealing with the matter. The finding of fact does not appear to suffer from any such infirmity as may require examination at our level. Leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M-1131/S Leave Refused.