1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHAWAR MUNIR DAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Fazal Karim and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | KHAWAR MUNIR DAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Fazal Karim and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHAWAR MUNIR DAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Additional A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1995.
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Additional A.‑G. for Respondents.
- 2. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment on the ground that Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan had retired on 30‑12‑1993, that is, six days before the judgment was announced. Mr. Farooq Bedar, Addition4l Advocate‑General has affirmed the assertion of the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 5-1-1994 in Appeal No. 427 of 1990):
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212
Departmental appeal dismissed
Appeal before. Service Tribunal was heard by a Bench of Tribunal comprising Chairman and a Member
Legality of judgment of Service Tribunal was challenged on -the ground that one Member of Service Tribunal had retired before the judgment was announced
Judgment was recorded by the retiring Member and he had appended his signatures thereon, on the very day when he retired
Judgment however, had to be taken as of the date when it was announced
On date .of announcement of judgment, retiring Member being not a member of Service Tribunal, same could not be regarded as that of the Tribunal
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed
Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for rehearing of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Departmental appeal dismissed‑‑‑Appeal before. Service Tribunal was heard by a Bench of Tribunal comprising Chairman and a Member‑‑‑Legality of judgment of Service Tribunal was challenged on ‑the ground that one Member of Service Tribunal had retired before the judgment was announced‑‑‑Judgment was recorded by the retiring Member and he had appended his signatures thereon, on the very day when he retired‑‑‑Judgment however, had to be taken as of the date when it was announced‑‑‑On date .of announcement of judgment, retiring Member being not a member of Service Tribunal, same could not be regarded as that of the Tribunal‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed‑‑‑Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for rehearing of appeal. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Additional A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1995. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑‑The petitioner was serving as a junior clerk in the Directorate of Excise and Taxation in' Sargodha Division. Consequent upon disciplinary proceedings he was removed from service by the Director on 14‑9‑1989: He filed a departmental appeal before the Director‑General but it was rejected. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was heard by a Bench of the Tribunal, comprising the Chairman and Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan on 15‑12‑1993. The judgment was announced on 5‑1‑1994. It was one of dismissal.
2. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment on the ground that Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan had retired on 30‑12‑1993, that is, six days before the judgment was announced. Mr. Farooq Bedar, Addition4l Advocate‑General has affirmed the assertion of the petitioner.
3. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan and he appended his signatures thereof on the very day when he retired but that does not help. The judgment has to be taken as of the date when it was announced. Since on that day Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan was not a member of the Tribunal the judgment cannot be regarded as that of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for rehearing of the appeal. H.B.T./K‑279/S Appeal allowed.