1989 SCMR 1641 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1641 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid lqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1641 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1641 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid lqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1641 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 21st January, 1988 in Appeal No.503/75 of 1986), constitution or Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art.212(2)‑‑Employees of Food Department‑‑Loss of empty bags Contention of petitioner that since he was not incharge of empty bags, he could not be held liable for their loss‑‑Finding of Service Tribunal that empty bags were received by co‑accused but at the destination the same had been received by the petitioner, therefore, he could not escape from his liability‑‑Finding of fact had been recorded against the petitioner‑‑No interference, held, was called for in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ramzan Khan petitioner is directed against judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 21st January, 1988 whereby his appeal was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that it came to the notice of respondent No. 1 that there was a shortage of 3970 B‑class empty bags of wheat at Shergarh centre. The petitioner who was posted as Assistant Food Controller was proceeded against departmentally along with Ejaz Nabi Saleemi, Food Grain Inspector vide showcase notices dated 1st January 198(
7. The petitioner as well as the Food Grain Inspector submitted their respective replies. The respondent No. 1 imposed the recovery of an amount of Rs.55,580 on both of them m equal proportion vide his order dated 13th January, 1986) as the price of 3970 empty bags. The Food Grain Inspector deposited his share of the liability but the petitioner eventually preferred an appeal in the Tribunal which has bccrt dismissed as stated,,above and hence the present petition. It is contended by learned counsel that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal for the reason that he did not implead Ejaz Nabil Saleemi as respondent, but this is not the correct position. It had been contended f before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner that since he was not incharge of the empty bags, he could not be held liable for their loss. But in regard to this argument the finding of the Tribunal is that while the empty bags were received by Ejaz Nabi Saleemi from Mughalpura but at the destination i.e. Slicrgarh centre the same had been received by the petitioner and that therefore the petitioner could not escape from his liability. Since this finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioner, in our view no interference is called for. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./M‑886/S Petition dismissed.