1991 PLP 1733 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1733 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1733 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1733 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1733 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sayeed A. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaque Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th September, 1990.
- Sayeed A. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaque Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-6-1990 passed in Appeal No.79(K) of 1986).
S. 4
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr.3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Assets existing in the name of civil servant were expected to be mentioned in the declaration of assets, even if civil servant was Benamidar of such assets
Non-declaration in Annual Statement of Assets which civil servant was holding as Benamidar, would constitute riiisconduct
Civil servant having failed to explain satisfactorily his omission to declare such assets in Annual Statement of Assets, finding of Enquiry Officer that petitioner was guilty of misconduct which finding was upheld by Service Tribunal was unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal by its judgment dated 19‑6‑1990.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against on certain charges which related to his investment of money in property and insurance policy without the permission of the Department and without disclosing the same in the Annual Statement of Assets. The plea of the petitioner in defence was that he had not acquired the properties from his own resources, that he was a mere Benamidar and being not the owner, was not obliged to seek permission or to declare it as his own property. The Department held an enquiry and punished him with dismissal from service. He challenged the same before the Service Tribunal but failed.
3. A number of grounds have been taken up in the Memorandum of Petition for leave to appeal with regard to the improper conduct of the enquiry, not making available the record for proper defence and the bias of the enquiry officer. As regards the merits of the case, the petitioner advanced the same plea which was taken note of by the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and agree with the conclusion drawn by the Federal Service Tribunal as hereunder:‑ "Whatever assets existed in the appellant's name were expected to be mentioned in the declaration of assets. If the appellant was "Benamidar", it was all the more necessary that he should have not only mentioned it but should have particularly added the explanatory facts. The mere fact that the appellant chose not to disclose this asset in the declaration of assets, clearly speaks for itself. For these reasons the Enquiry Officer's finding that the appellant was guilty of misconduct is also upheld. (7) As in the case of the Sea Breeze flat, it is not denied by the appellant that he purchased Life Insurance Policy of Rs.50,000 for which the annual premium was Rs.4,
600. The appellant's explanation that a few months later he surrendered the policy for its cash value would not in any way advance his case. He admittedly did not disclose its purchase in the Statement of Assets and was, therefore, rightly held guilty of misconduct on this account also."
5. Factually, the learned counsel cannot explain his omission to declare these assets and also the explanation given by him is wholly unsatisfactory. The authorities were justified in coming to the conclusion to which they did.
6. No question of law of public importance arises in the case to justify leave to appeal which is hereby refused. H.B.T./M‑1510/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave to appeal refused.