1990 PLP 1012 (SCMR)
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1012 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1012 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1012 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1012 (SCMR) (THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.R. Masood Gangohi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 2‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. 140/88). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider questions whether it was open to competent Authority to disagree with the findings of Authorised Officer and whether it was open to High Court to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter while only a show‑cause notice had been issued to respondent and no final order had yet been made.
Judgment & Decree
S.R. Masood Gangohi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent was serving as Stenographer in the Department of Urdu of the University Oriental College. On the allegations that he had misappropriated funds amounting to Rs.81,346.60 and had misplaced the relevant record relating to the funds, disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. The authorised officer held an inquiry and exonerated him of the charges against him. He recommended to the competent authority to reinstate him. The competent authority declined to accept the finding of the authorised officer and issued him a show‑cause notice why he should not be removed or dismissed from the University service. Instead of giving any reply he filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the legality of the show‑cause notice. A learned single Judge accepted the petition and declared the notice to be without lawful authority and of no consequence. The University of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we grant leave to appeal to consider the questions; (1) Whether it was open to the competent authority to disagree with the findings of the authorised officer? and (2) Whether it was open to the High Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction in the matter while only a show‑cause notice had been issued to the respondent and no final order had yet been made? The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to tile additional documents, if any. The operation of the order of the High Court is stayed. H.B.T./U‑31/S Leave granted.