1990 SCMR1550 (PLP)
Mian INAYAT MAULA QURAISHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 SCMR1550 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑Art. 13‑A as inserted by. Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order (3 of 1982)‑‑‑Civil servant's dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal against his dismissal‑‑‑During pendency of civil servant's petition before Supreme Court, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, as amended by Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 1982, came into force whereby petition stood abated‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that his order of dismissal being mala fide, it was not affected by amendment made in Provisional Constitution Order‑‑‑Such plea having also been taken before Service Tribunal was rejected‑‑‑Service Tribunal, after examining 'the record came to conclusion that almost all the charges against petitioner stood proved‑‑‑Even. if contention of petitioner was accepted that his petition did not abate by operation of amendment in the Provisional Constitution Order, case was not one fit where leave to appeal be granted‑‑‑Leave refused. |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mian INAYAT MAULA QURAISHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR1550 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 SCMR1550 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑Art. 13‑A as inserted by. Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order (3 of 1982)‑‑‑Civil servant's dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal against his dismissal‑‑‑During pendency of civil servant's petition before Supreme Court, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, as amended by Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 1982, came into force whereby petition stood abated‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that his order of dismissal being mala fide, it was not affected by amendment made in Provisional Constitution Order‑‑‑Such plea having also been taken before Service Tribunal was rejected‑‑‑Service Tribunal, after examining 'the record came to conclusion that almost all the charges against petitioner stood proved‑‑‑Even. if contention of petitioner was accepted that his petition did not abate by operation of amendment in the Provisional Constitution Order, case was not one fit where leave to appeal be granted‑‑‑Leave refused. bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR1550 (PLP) (Mian INAYAT MAULA QURAISHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Iqbal Ch. Vehniwal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3‑8‑1980 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Service Appeal No‑. 574 of 1974). ‑‑‑‑Art. 13‑A [as inserted by. Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order (3 of 1982)]‑‑‑Civil servant's dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal against his dismissal‑‑‑During pendency of civil servant's petition before Supreme Court, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, as amended by Provisional Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 1982, came into force whereby petition stood abated‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that his order of dismissal being mala fide, it was not affected by amendment made in Provisional Constitution Order‑‑‑Such plea having also been taken before Service Tribunal was rejected‑‑‑Service Tribunal, after examining 'the record came to conclusion that almost all the charges against petitioner stood proved‑‑‑Even. if contention of petitioner was accepted that his petition did not abate by operation of amendment in the Provisional Constitution Order, case was not one fit where leave to appeal be granted‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner joined the Provincial Civil Service (E.B) in the Punjab in 1948. He was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Jhang in January, 1969, On 4‑12‑1969 he was placed under suspension and proceedings under Martial Law Regulation No. 58 were initiated against him. He was served with a charge‑sheet. He submitted a written reply. The Tribunal set up under the said Regulation considered his reply and also heard him in person. Apparently, his explanation was not found satisfactory and by an order dated 4‑3‑1970 he was dismissed from service by the President. On the constitution of the Punjab Service Tribunal he filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. His appeal was dismissed on 3‑8‑1980. He then filed the present petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
2. During the pendency of the petition, the Provisional Constitution Order came into force. This Order was amended by C.M.L.A's Order No. III of 1982. By virtue of the amendment, the petition stood abated. (See Hidayatullah v. Federation of Pakistan; (1986 S C M R 803).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as in the present case the order of dismissal was mala fides, it was not affected by the amendment made in the Provisional Constitution Order. It is to be noticed that the plea of mala fides was also taken before the Tribunal but it came to the conclusion that it was not conclusively proved that the action against the appellant was solely the result of the mala fides. The Tribunal also went through the various charges contained in the charge‑sheet served upon the petitioner and after examining the record it came to the conclusion that almost all of them stood proved. In the circumstances, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that his petition did not abate by operation of the amendment in the Provisional Constitution Order, this is not a fit case where leave to appeal may be granted. The petition is disposed of accordingly. A.A./I‑106/S Leave refused.