1993 PLP 2328 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZLULLAH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2328 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZLULLAH‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2328 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2328 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2328 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZLULLAH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Sardar Khan, Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P. and Abdul Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1993.
- 2. The learned Advocate‑General has submitted that the respondent's services were already dispensed with from 3‑11‑1983 and the pardon order clearly stipulates that the respondent would not be restored to service. His conviction was not set aside and pardon does not amount to acquittal of the respondent, therefore, the order of the Service Tribunal is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on Rule 8 of the N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It was submitted that no inquiry was necessary in the given circumstances.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 13‑4‑1992 in Service Appeal No. 79/1991). North‑West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant's conviction and dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant was ultimately pardoned with clear order that such pardon would not restore him to public office‑‑ Constitutional petition filed against such order by civil servant was dismissed‑‑ Service Tribunal, however, ordered reinstatement of civil servant ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that civil servant services were already dispensed with from a certain date and pardon order clearly stipulated that he would not be restored to service, civil servant's conviction was set aside and pardon granted to him would not amount to acquittal of civil servant; therefore, order of Service Tribunal was not sustained.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The respondent was appointed as Superintendent at the Examination Centre, Charsadda. During the examination, photostat copies of Question Paper of English `B' were recovered from some person in Mardan, and consequently, an F.I.R. was registered. The respondent was arrested and tried in a Military Summary Court. He was convicted and sentenced to one, year R.I., fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for nine months and also 15 lashes in public. It was also directed that departmental action should also be taken against the respondent. As a result of departmental action, the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 3‑11‑1983. The respondent filed mercy petitions on various occasions. The fine was remitted on three occasions and so also the punishment of lashes. Ultimately, on 8‑9‑1985 he was pardoned but it was made clear in the order that pardon does not restore convict person to public office. The respondent's Constitution petition was dismissed. However, the Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and directed that the respondent be reinstated in service. The Government being aggrieved has filed this petition.
2. The learned Advocate‑General has submitted that the respondent's services were already dispensed with from 3‑11‑1983 and the pardon order clearly stipulates that the respondent would not be restored to service. His conviction was not set aside and pardon does not amount to acquittal of the respondent, therefore, the order of the Service Tribunal is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on Rule 8 of the N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It was submitted that no inquiry was necessary in the given circumstances. Leave is granted. AA./G‑407/S Leave granted.