1987 PLP 1354 (SCMR)
COUNCIL, TOBA TEK SINGH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1354 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | COUNCIL, TOBA TEK SINGH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1354 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1354 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1354 (SCMR) (COUNCIL, TOBA TEK SINGH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 14‑3‑1985 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.698/965 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Argument not convassed before Service Tribunal‑‑Such argument was not entertained for first time in Supreme Court as question involved could only be resolved after an inquiry‑‑Leave to appeal refused. ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R. 13‑‑Misconduct‑‑Imposition of penalty by way of recovery of loss involved‑‑Petitioner having been punished after a regular inquiry wherein he was given ample opportunity to defend himself and no substantial question of law of public importance arising, Supreme Court declined to go into merits of case and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a member of the Punjab Local Council Service and was posted as municipal engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Multan, between the period from 8‑12‑1979 to 24‑9‑1980. During this period the Corporation constructed a waiting hall near the General Bus Stand at an estimated costs of Rs.3,40,
000. The petitioner was incharge of buildings and roads. Following some heavy rains in Multan a portion of the roof collapsed. The roof was repaired but a few days later it again caved in. An inquiry was held into the repeated collapses of the roof and as a result disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the Assistant Engineer and Sub‑Engineer. Consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings the penalties of reduction in pay and recovery of Rs.1,00,000 which represented the loss caused to the Municipal Corporation were imposed on him. He filed a review petition which was rejected by the Government. He then preferred an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal which set aside the penalty of reduction in pay but maintained that of recovery of loss. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition two arguments have been raised. In the first instance it is contended that the petitioner was not an employee of the Provincial Government and as such the Provincial Government was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. This argument was admittedly not canvassed the Service Tribunal. The question whether the Provincial Government was competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner could only be resolved after an inquiry. We are not prepared to entertain this argument for the first time in this Court. The second argument relates to the merits of the case. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has been punished after a regular inquiry wherein he was given ample opportunity to defend himself. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. / M‑105/S Petition dismissed.