1991 PLP R1755 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MANSOOB BUTT — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP R1755 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANSOOB BUTT — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP R1755 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP R1755 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP R1755 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MANSOOB BUTT — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1990.
- Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 6-4-1989 passed in Appeal No. 412(R) of 1987).
Art. 212(3)
Civil servant dismissed on proof of misconduct
Civil servant's contention was that charge-sheet did not specify the punishment which could be inflicted on proof of the charge, but only mentioned appropriate disciplinary action for the same; and that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to him and he had been prejudiced in his defence
Held; Rules prescribing the punishments were referred to in the charge-sheet before calling upon civil servant to show-cause against the appropriate punishment
Personal hearing had been afforded to civil servant, and it had to be afforded under the rules of service only, when major penalty of dismissal was likely to be imposed
Factual aspect of the case did not justify grant of leave to appeal
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, whose appeal against dismissal from service failed before the Service Tribunal, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6‑4‑1989.
2. The petitioner was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and an enquiry was held into his conduct. He was dismissed from service. He challenged the action on various grounds but failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up two grounds for maintaining this Petition for grant of leave to appeal. In the first place, it is contended that the charge‑sheet did not specify the punishment which could be inflicted on proof of the charge, but only mentioned "appropriate disciplinary action" for the same. The second is that a copy of the enquiry report as indicated by the decision of this Court in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary (P L D 1981 SC 176) was not supplied to the petitioner and he has been thereby prejudiced in his defence.
4. The first legal ground has been taken care of by a decision by this Court in Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi v. Service Tribunal, Islamabad and others (1981 S C M R 402) and we find that the rules prescribing the punishments were referred to in the charge‑sheet before calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the appropriate punishment.
5. In the case of Mir Muhammad (P L D 1981 SC 176) there were exceptional features and the learned counsel himself referred to Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others (1988 S C M R 1352) where the copy of the enquiry report was held to be not necessary in every case. Besides, we find that personal hearing had been afforded to the petitioner and it is afforded, under the rules of service, only when major penalty of dismissal is likely to be imposed.
6. As regards the factual aspect of the case, no question of leave to appeal arises and the Petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1296/S Leave refused.