1989 PLP 1993 (SCMR)
others‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed DILAWAR ALI SHAH Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1993 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | others‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed DILAWAR ALI SHAH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1993 (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 1989 PLP 1993 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1993 (SCMR) (others‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed DILAWAR ALI SHAH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 18‑10‑1984 in t Appeal No. 543 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether some of the findings of the Tribunal were contrary to the evidence on record and whether there was no discussion in the impugned judgment with regard to the additional charge pertaining to the wilful absence of civil servant.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Province of Punjab through Director General, Social Welfare Punjab and the Ass1stant Director, Social Welfare, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 18‑10‑1.984. The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment set aside the orders of the Director‑General and the Ass1stant Director, Social Welfare and varied the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and that of censure. The Tribunal further held that the intervening period was to be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that some of the findings of the Tribunal were contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that there is no discussion in the impugned judgment with regard to the additional charge pertaining to the wilful absence of the respondent from 13‑9‑1983 to 26‑9‑1983. We think the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to rile additional documents within two months. M.A.K./P‑108/S Leave granted.