1993 PLP 2327 (SCMR)
IKRAMULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CITY SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICES, PESHAWAR
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | IKRAMULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CITY SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICES, PESHAWAR |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2327 (SCMR) (IKRAMULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CITY SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICES, PESHAWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zaheer Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 11‑2‑1993 in Appeal No. 252 (P) of 1992), ‑‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Civil servant had been removed from service after proper inquiry‑‑‑Civil servant could not point out that departmental proceedings taken against him suffered from any infirmity‑‑‑Allegations that stood established against civil servant clearly showed that he had been lightly treated in the matter of punishment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving as officiating clerk in the office of the Post Master, Peshawar City. There were allegations of misconduct, misbehaviour and unauthorised absence from duty against him. He was served with a charge‑sheet and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after giving a further opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself the City Superintendent of Post Offices dismissed him for service. He preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Post Master‑General. The appeal partly succeeded inasmuch as the punishment awarded to him was reduced to removal from service. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The petitioner has been removed from service after a proper inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the departmental proceedings taken against him suffered from any infirmity. Considering the allegations that stand established against him he seems to have been lightly treated in the matter of punishment. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./I‑176/S Leave refused.