1993 PLP 1467 (SCMR)
AMANULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others‑‑‑Respondentsf
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1467 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMANULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others‑‑‑Respondentsf |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1467 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1467 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1467 (SCMR) (AMANULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others‑‑‑Respondentsf). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- D.M. Awan Senior Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of. Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 9‑1‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 365 of 1988). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212‑‑‑Civil servant who was a Provincial employee and was on deputation with WAPDA obtained three months' leave for visiting his family abroad and had given an undertaking that he would not seek employment anywhere else‑‑‑Civil servant did not return after the expiry of the leave and instead obtained an employment abroad where he remained still employed and sought extension of his (cave in view of various policy letters which request was refused and after charge‑sheet he was dismissed from service‑‑‑Held, policy instructions on basis of which civil servant sought extension of leave did not apply to a person who was. already on‑ deputation; he could not of his own proceed to a second deputation besides he had given an undertaking not to take up an employment. anywhere else and therefore, he could not resile from it unilaterally; had he not given the undertaking he would not have been granted leave ex‑Pakistan; what was more by taking up employment abroad, he definitely abandoned his employment in WAPDA and in the dismissal order by mentioning that date as that of his dismissal and relating it to the date of abandonment of his employment, nothing more than a fact was stated and it was not a question of passing a retrospective order or the question of power of the WAPDA but of the conduct of the civil servant in not returning after expiry of the leave and by taking up an unauthorised employment abroad.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 9‑1‑1992 whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner challenged the dismissal from service order passed on 28‑12‑1987 but taking effect from 13‑8‑1978.
3. The petitioner was posted as Director of Design WAPDA (Power) at Lahore. He himself being a Deputionist from Punjab Government obtained three months' leave from 18‑5‑1978 for visiting his family abroad. He gave an undertaking that he would not seek employment anywhere else. He did not return after the ‑expiry of the leave and instead obtained an employment in Saudi Arabia where he remains still employed. He sought in view of the various policy letters extension of his leave which was refused. He was charge sheeted and dismissed from service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned before the Tribunal was from a retrospective date going as far back in retrospect as August; 1978 and was beyond the competence of Authority. Similarly, the inquiry was not hold in accordance with law and the petitioner should have been extended the benefit of employment abroad as would appear to be the policy of Government in 1978 or near about.
5. From the facts narrated, it appears that the petitioner was on deputation when he proceeded abroad. These instructions do not apply to a person who is already on deputation. He could not of his own proceed to a second deputation. Besides he had given a written undertaking not to take up an employment anywhere else. Hence he could not resile from it unilaterally. Had he not given it he would not have been granted leave ex‑Pakistan. What is more by taking up employment abroad, he definitely abandoned his employment in WAPDA and in the dismissal order by mentioning that date as of dismissal and relating it to the date of his abandonment of his employment nothing more than a fact was stated. It was not a question of passing a restrospective order or the question of power of the Authority but of the conduct of the petitioner in not returning after expire of the leave and by taking up an unauthorised employment abroad,
6. Leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A./A‑1009/S Leave refused.