1986 PLP 1669 (SCMR)
NASIM AHMAD SIDDIQUl — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1669 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | NASIM AHMAD SIDDIQUl — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1669 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1669 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1669 (SCMR) (NASIM AHMAD SIDDIQUl — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both Appeals).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Appeals).
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1986.
- Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Appeals).
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4--Service Tribunal dealing with all pleas raised by petitioners and rejecting them for valid and proper reasons to which no valid exception could be taken--Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Appeals). Nemo for Respondents (in both Appeals). Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1986. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑By these two petitions, the petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 21‑10‑1985 dismissing two separate appeals filed by the petitioners. These appeals were directed against the order of petitioners' dismissal from service. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record before us we find that there is no valid justification at all for interference by this Court, for, the Service Tribunal has dealt with all the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us and rejected them for valid and proper reasons. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed. M . Y . H . Petitions dismissed.