2006 PLP 1452 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ORDNANCE SERVICES, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, RAWALPINDI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1452 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ORDNANCE SERVICES, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, RAWALPINDI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1452 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ORDNANCE SERVICES, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, RAWALPINDI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar, Dy. A.-G. for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-7-2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No.392(L) of 1998).
Rr. 3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Misappropriation of M.T. Stores, charge of
Recovery of stores from a shop of civilian in local market
Dismissal of appeal of civil servant by Service Tribunal
Plea of civil servant was that in fact no misappropriation had taken place as stores confiscated from shop had been returned to its owner
Civil servant had not raised such plea before Tribunal at the time of hearing of appeal
Such charge had been proved concurrently
No question of law of public importance was involved
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.
The petitioner, Muhammad Boota an Ex-Storeman, Engineers Stores Depot (E.S.D.) Lahore Cantonment, Lahore through this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 7-7-2000, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore dismissing his Appeal No.392(L) of 1998.
2. On 23-4-1995, a raid was conducted in a shop of a civilian in Badami Bagh, Lahore and certain articles, stolen from the E.S.D., were recovered from it. A fact-finding inquiry was held and the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the misappropriation of the Stores. The allegations were denied by the petitioner. A show-cause notice. was issued on 1-12-1997, which was replied by the petitioner on 15-12-1997. The petitioner was discharged from service, vide order, dated 22-12-1997, on account of misappropriation of M.T. Stores. The departmental appeal dated 15-1-1998 was rejected through order, dated 18-4-1998. The petitioner's appeal as mentioned above, was dismissed by Federal Service Tribunal on 7-7-2000, after examination of the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the departmental representative.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge of misappropriation was not proved and the major penalty of discharge from service is harsh and excessive. The learned counsel has also tried to show us certain documents, to contend that the goods confiscated from the shop were returned to the shop owner and in fact no misappropriation took place. No such plea was taken before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of appeal. The forums below have concurrently held that the charge of misappropriation of M.T. Stores was proved against the petitioner, which finding of fact does not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 212(3), of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. In view of the above-mentioned, we find no merit in this petition. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave is refused. S.A.K./M-241/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.