1990SCMR1416 (PLP)
KHAN MUHAMMAD NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, CO‑OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF
| Citation | 1990SCMR1416 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, CO‑OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1416 (PLP)?
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 1990SCMR1416 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur 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: 1990SCMR1416 (PLP) (KHAN MUHAMMAD NIAZI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, CO‑OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 2‑1‑1986 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 782 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Finding on question of fact recorded by Authority below and affirmed by Service Tribunal, supported by sufficient evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with‑‑‑No substantial question of law of public importance arising in case, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was Assistant Registrar, Co operative Society at Rajanpur. On 14‑1‑1982, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, it was found that he was involved in a number of irregularities white holding the office of Assistant Registrar. Consequently, action was taken against him under Rule 1.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963 and a charge‑sheet was served ;,"upon him in December, 1982. A regular departmental inquiry was held as a result of which his pension to the extent of 50% was withheld. After his departmental appeal failed, he filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that on account of misconduct disciplinary proceedings leading to withholding of whole or part of pension could be taken against a civil servant even after he had retired from service. The Department framed 6 charges against him. The Inquiry Officer found 5 of these to have been established. These were;, inefficiency in the discharge of official duties, registration of bogus/fictitious societies without proper scrutiny fixation/enhancement of M.C.Ls of Societies deliberately in haphazard manner with ulterior motive, failure to conduct scrutiny of societies prior to the advancement of loans and misuse of official position in violation of service conduct rule, leading to misappropriation of crop loans amounting to about a million of rupees in Rabi 1981‑n2 drawn from the Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Rajanpur.
3. The learned counsel contended that on the evidence on record none of these allegations could be said to have been established. The question whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges against the petitioner was one of fact and we are not persuaded that the said charges were without any foundation. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this case. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑129/S Petition dismissed.