1989 PLP 1757 (SCMR)
FARZAND ALI, EX‑FOREST GUARD, BAHAWALPUR Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOREST AND
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1757 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Sheikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | FARZAND ALI, EX‑FOREST GUARD, BAHAWALPUR Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOREST AND |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1757 (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 1757 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Sheikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1757 (SCMR) (FARZAND ALI, EX‑FOREST GUARD, BAHAWALPUR Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOREST AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Langha, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 31‑7‑1985 in Appeal No. 23/24 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider questions: that petitioner was given a show‑cause notice for a minor penalty but he was awarded the maximum penalty of dismissal from service and that the punishing authority passed a consolidated order against the petitioner and several others which had caused prejudice to him in that, the authority was influenced by the facts of the other cases which were totally different from the case against the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 31‑7‑1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner which was directed against the order of his dismissal from service. Facts of the case briefly stated are as under: While petitioner was serving as Forest Guard, Bahawalpur in 1978, a charge‑sheet was issued against him for being inefficient in his duties which led to a departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty on four charges of inefficiency, whereupon the Chief Conservator of Forests issued a second show‑cause notice to petitioner as to why the following two penalties should not be imposed upon him: "(1) Withholding of promotion for a period of three years when due. (2) Censure." Petitioner made a reply to the aforesaid notice which was however considered by the Chief Conservator of Forests along with several cases against other officers of the department with the result that he was dismissed from service. Petitioner's departmental appeal against the order of his dismissal from service failed and he then filed an appeal to the Service Tribunal. This appeal was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, and it is in these circumstances that he filed this petition. Mr. Taj Muhammad Langha, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the Service Tribunal has ignored the fact that whereas petitioner was given a show‑cause notice for a minor penalty, he was on the other hand, awarded the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to notice that the learned Chief Conservator passed a consolidated order against the petitioner and several others which has caused serious prejudice to him, in that, the learned Officer was influenced by the facts of the other cases which were totally different from the case against the petitioner. These and other points raised in support of the petition deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Appeal will be heard on present record at an early date. It is however open to the parties to rile additional documents, if any. M.A.K./F‑124/S Leave granted.