2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Haji ALLAH NOOR MALIK Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. and Mian Shakirullah Jan, J |
| Parties | Haji ALLAH NOOR MALIK Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. and Mian Shakirullah Jan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Haji ALLAH NOOR MALIK Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner who contended that department had failed to substantiate charge against him. Inasmuch as opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the petitioner on the statement of the witnesses produced by the department to substantiate charge against him. Therefore, on both these scores, impugned judgment rendered by Service Tribunal warrants interference.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-7-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos.205 and 2782 of 2001).
Art. 212(3)
Inquiry Officer on having taken into consideration the evidence produced by Department, had concluded that petitioner was responsible for removal of the full loaded truck of scrap from the store
Such findings had been accepted by the competent Departmental Authority and the Service Tribunal had also not interfered in the findings of fact so recorded by the Department
No case, having been made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.212(3) of Constitution, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 2-7-2002 passed by the Punjab service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner who contended that department had failed to substantiate charge against him. Inasmuch as opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the petitioner on the statement of the witnesses produced by the department to substantiate charge against him. Therefore, on both these scores, impugned judgment rendered by Service Tribunal warrants interference.
3. On having taken into consideration the charge-sheet, the reply of the petitioner explaining thereby that a truck of load of scrap allegedly removed by him had been auctioned to a contractor, therefore, it being not the property of the Government would not warrant action against him. But record reveals that no document to substantiate the plea was produced by him. Similarly allowing him opportunity of cross-examination on the petitioner witnesses was not possible because despite of available two opportunities to cross-examine them, he absented himself, therefore, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the matter. Thus both the grounds being un-founded are not available to the petitioner.
4. The Inquiry Officer on having taken into consideration the evidence produced by the department had concluded that petitioner is responsible for removal of the full loaded scrap from the store and such findings have been accepted by the competent departmental authority and the Service Tribunal had also not interfered in the finding of fact so recorded by the department.
5. Thus no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. Petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-20/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.