PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL MAJEED Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Appeal No. 574 of 1989, decided on 14th May, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
Parties ABDUL MAJEED Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL MAJEED Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant.
  • Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents
  • Date of hearing: 21st April, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

Departmental proceedings

Some quantity of wheat purchased by civil servant as Foodgrains Supervisor, was found short and civil servant was proceeded departmentally and as a result of such proceedings penalty of total recovery of loss was imposed on him

Civil servant had not taken necessary precautionary measures such as timely fumigation and had not sent stocks condition reports to supervisory officers earlier

Stocks of wheat were infested because of slackness and negligence of civil servant as he did not request his supervisors for early allocation

Civil servant could not produce any document to show that condition of godowns in which wheat was stocked, was such that effective fumigation was not possible

Civil servant, in view of negligence and slackness shown by him in keeping supervisory officers informed o condition of stocks, would not deserve any leniency

Penalty of total recovery as a result of departmental proceedings initiated against civic servant was thus rightly imposed on him.

Judgment & Decree

Appeal No. 574 of 1989, decided on 14th May, 1991. Civil service

Departmental proceedings

Some quantity of wheat purchased by civil servant as Foodgrains Supervisor, was found short and civil servant was proceeded departmentally and as a result of such proceedings penalty of total recovery of loss was imposed on him

Civil servant had not taken necessary precautionary measures such as timely fumigation and had not sent stocks condition reports to supervisory officers earlier

Stocks of wheat were infested because of slackness and negligence of civil servant as he did not request his supervisors for early allocation

Civil servant could not produce any document to show that condition of godowns in which wheat was stocked, was such that effective fumigation was not possible

Civil servant, in view of negligence and slackness shown by him in keeping supervisory officers informed o condition of stocks, would not deserve any leniency

Penalty of total recovery as a result of departmental proceedings initiated against civic servant was thus rightly imposed on him. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents Date of hearing: 21st April, 1991.