1988 PLP 1970 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1970 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1970 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1970 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1970 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
- Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 15-2-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Case No.462/777 of 1980).
S.15--Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.3 (c)(i)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Dismissal from service on charge of corruption--Findings of departmental authorities and Service Tribunal not suffering from any infirmity--No substantial question of law of public importance arising--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a Patwari. After a departmental inquiry he was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Commissioner failed and the Service Tribunal declined to interfere with the orders of the departmental authorities. .
2. One of the charges against the petitioner was of corruption. Admittedly, his wife had purchased 5 kanals and 10 marlas of land worth Rs.75,
000. His explanation was that most of the money for the land was provided by his brother. The departmental authorities as well as the learned Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that their findings suffer from any infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this petition. Leave is refused. M. I. /A‑319/S Petition dismissed.