2006 PLP 1514 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1514 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1514 (SCMR)?
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 2006 PLP 1514 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1514 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both cases).
- M.A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondent (in both cases).
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 2005.
- 2. In both these cases the petitioners were Foodgrain Inspectors who were accused of having caused a loss of Rs.1,80,300 and Rs.2,40,732 respectively to the public exchequer. The learned Punjab Service Tribunal in both these cases looked into the factual aspects of the matter and found that the petitioners had been rightly held to be guilty of the charges levelled against them and consequently maintained the punishment of recovery of the amount of loss from the said two petitioners. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners has not been able to point out any substantial question of law of great public importance which could qualify the petitioners for the grant of leave to appeal in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27-8-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Service Appeals Nos.1851 and 1850 of 2001).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Punjab Service Tribunal in both cases looked into factual aspects of the matter and found that petitioners had been rightly held to be guilty of charges levelled against them and maintained punishment of recovery of amount of loss from them
Petitioners having failed to point out any substantial question of law of public importance which could qualify them for grant of leave to appeal in terms of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution, their petitions were dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.3800-L and 3819-L of 2002 because the same arise out of similar facts.
2. In both these cases the petitioners were Foodgrain Inspectors who were accused of having caused a loss of Rs.1,80,300 and Rs.2,40,732 respectively to the public exchequer. The learned Punjab Service Tribunal in both these cases looked into the factual aspects of the matter and found that the petitioners had been rightly held to be guilty of the charges levelled against them and consequently maintained the punishment of recovery of the amount of loss from the said two petitioners. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners has not been able to point out any substantial question of law of great public importance which could qualify the petitioners for the grant of leave to appeal in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./M-288/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.