1989 PLP 1758 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1758 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1758 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1758 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1758 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mchdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23‑2‑1981 in Appeal No. 52/200 of 1978). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Service Tribunal gave cogent reasons for dismissing the petitioner's appeal‑‑No error of law was pointed nor any question of public importance was involved in the case which needed examination‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Fazal Din, ex‑Accountant, Jhang Treasury Office, filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal against the order of his dismissal from service. His appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment dated 23‑2‑1981. He has now come to this Court seeking leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We find that the Tribunal in its judgment impugned before us gave cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal riled by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any error of law nor we find that there is any question of public importance involved in this case which needs examination. Petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./F‑125/S Petition dismissed.