1990SCMR1451 (PLP)
ALLAH RAKHA MASIH BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1990SCMR1451 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA MASIH BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1451 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1451 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court 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: 1990SCMR1451 (PLP) (ALLAH RAKHA MASIH BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 1989.
- 3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the, dispute with regard to both these questions had gone to the Arbitrator whose award clearly justified the position taken by the Petitioner as five miles lead was allowed to the Contractor as of necessity and the unsatisfactory work was got redone by the same Contractor. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner was not liable to suffer any penalty.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore dated 12‑11‑1986, passed in Case No. 168/687 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Stoppage of increment‑‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and his increment was stopped on charges firstly that he allowed unsatisfactory work to be done by contractor and approved it for payment and secondly he allowed excess work to contractor without permission of Competent Authority‑‑ Petitioner contended that he was not liable to suffer any penalty as Arbitrator after having gone to dispute on both the question had clearly justified in his award that excess work was allowed by petitioner as of necessity and that alleged unsatisfactory work was got redone by the contractor‑‑‑Arbitrator's award and proceedings relating thereto in Court otherwise having no direct bearing upon performance of petitioner or his handling of execution of work in terms of contract‑‑‑Subsequent rectification of defective work, held would also not protect petitioner in matter of departmental inquiry‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 12‑11‑1986 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was proceeded against departmentally under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and the two charges which require mention time and again are that he allowed unsatisfactory work to be done by the Contractor and approved it for payment and secondly he allowed a lead of 5 miles when in fact under the Contract a lead of 3 miles was permissible. After departmental inquiry, increment of one year without future affect was stopped. Getting no relief within the Department, the Petitioner approached the Service Tribunal and failed there also.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the, dispute with regard to both these questions had gone to the Arbitrator whose award clearly justified the position taken by the Petitioner as five miles lead was allowed to the Contractor as of necessity and the unsatisfactory work was got redone by the same Contractor. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner was not liable to suffer any penalty.
4. The Arbitrator's award and the proceedings relating thereto in the Court have no direct bearing upon the performance of the Petitioner or his handling of the execution of the work in terms of the Contract. If the contract provided three miles lead, the Petitioner could not without the permission of the competent authority, increase it to five miles. Subsequent rectification of the defective work also does not protect the Petitioner in the matter of departmental inquiry. The Petition has no merit and leave to appeal is refused. AA./A‑623/S Leave refused.