1989 PLP 1185 (SCMR)
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1185 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1185 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1185 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1185 (SCMR) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.S. Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3rd January, 1987 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.23(R)85). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Impugned order of Service Tribunal was based on two reasons viz. one, relating purely to merits of the case; and other that the recovery of the loss caused to the Government from pay of the accused civil servant after his dismissal from service contemporaneously when the order of dismissal of his service was being passed was not permissible‑‑Leave to appeal was refused with observations that although the second point might need examination, but, in case civil servant succeeds on the first point, the second point would not arise and if he fails on the first point of merits, and he is again dismissed from service the Authority concerned would be at liberty to examine and decide the question afresh as to whether under the law the recovery could and should be ordered or not, therefore no useful purpose would be served by grant of leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance of respondent's service appeal, by the Federal Service, Tribunal. The operative part reads as under:‑‑ "The appeal is accepted and it is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated in service. Since, however, the appeal is being accepted for technical reasons it shall be open for the relevant authorities to proceed afresh against him for the charge but in strict conformity with the relevant law and the prescribed procedure." The impugned order is based on two reasons. One, relating purely to merits of the case; and second, that the recovery of the loss caused to the Government from his pay of the respondent after his dismissal from service or contemporaneously when the order of dismissal of his service is being passed, was not permissible. In so far as the first point in concerned it does not involve any question of law of public importance. Although the second point might need examination; but, in case the respondent succeeds on the first point the second point would not arise in this case. And if he fails on the first point of merits, and he is again dismissed from service the authority concerned would be at liberty to examine and decide the question afresh as to whether under the law the recovery could and should be ordered or not. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by grant of leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case. The same, accordingly, is refused. M.B.A./P‑90/S Petition dismissed.