1989 PLP 1300 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1300 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1300 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul AZIZ, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3‑2‑1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No.364/656 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Removal from service and reversion as an unemployed Clerk‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal was accepted with a direction that a proper enquiry after a charge‑sheet to him be held‑‑Civil servant however, was not reinstated in service; his appeal before Service Tribunal remained unsuccessful‑‑Contention that civil servant had been removed from service without any inquiry and in defiance of the order of departmental appellate authority was found to without any foundation‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was serving as a junior clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, (Saddar) Sub‑Division, Sheikhupura on temporary basis lie was posted in a branch dealing with arm licences. A number of irregularities were detected and an inquiry was held by the General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. On the report of the inquiry officer, the Deputy Commissioner reverted him as unemployed clerk on the ground that his retention in service was undesirable. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner. His appeal was accepted with a direction that a proper inquiry after charge‑sheeting .him should be held. Apparently, he was not reinstated in service. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 2.The case of the petitioner is that despite the directions of the Commissioner given on three occasions no proper inquiry was held against him and as such his removal from service was illegal. This plea was also raised before the Provincial Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal called for the record and found. "It is on record that an enquiry was conducted by the A.D.C. (G) in pursuance of the Commissioner's orders and a final report to this effect was submitted on 14‑2‑1976. 11 seems that somehow or the other, this fact remained out of picture whenever the appellant lodged his complaint in this respect before the two Commissioners. As the Commissioners were not apprised of the fact that a regular enquiry had been conducted against him, they made observations in their own orders quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. Finally when the Commissioner. Lahore Division, was informed that the orders of his predecessor as well as his own have been fully complied with, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine, on 28‑6‑1980. This enquiry was conducted by Ch. Abdul Latif Khan who vide his detailed report held the appellant fully responsible for the act of forgery and at the same time exonerated Nazir Ahmad and Ghulam Haider of the same." In view of this position the contention of the petitioner that he had been removed from service without any inquiry and in defiance of the order of the Commissioner, is without any foundation. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./G‑170/S Petition dismissed.