1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BASHIR AHMAD BHATTI Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 4
Enquiry Officer found civil servant guilty of not mentioning a certain property in his annual declaration of assets
Authorised Officer observed that there could be some sort of negligence about charge on part of civil servant as such a simple warning to be careful in future would meet ends of justice, but despite such observation instead of administering proposed warning, minor penalty of cesure was imposed thinking that censure `meant simple warning'
While `censure' was a punishment, under Rules, 1975, simple warning was not punishment
Order of Commissioner, considering period of suspension of civil servant to be as extraordinary leave was not justified-- Suspension of service was itself not necessary as in any case enquiry against civil servant was departmental enquiry and not a criminal case where question of honourable acquittal or otherwise should arise
Orders of Authorities against civil servant were set aside with direction that period of suspension should be treated as period spent on duty.
Judgment & Decree
COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and others Appeal No. 40 of 1990, decided on 4th March, 1991.
R. 4
Enquiry Officer found civil servant guilty of not mentioning a certain property in his annual declaration of assets
Authorised Officer observed that there could be some sort of negligence about charge on part of civil servant as such a simple warning to be careful in future would meet ends of justice, but despite such observation instead of administering proposed warning, minor penalty of cesure was imposed thinking that censure `meant simple warning'
While `censure' was a punishment, under Rules, 1975, simple warning was not punishment
Order of Commissioner, considering period of suspension of civil servant to be as extraordinary leave was not justified-- Suspension of service was itself not necessary as in any case enquiry against civil servant was departmental enquiry and not a criminal case where question of honourable acquittal or otherwise should arise
Orders of Authorities against civil servant were set aside with direction that period of suspension should be treated as period spent on duty. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents.