1990 PLP 1410 (SCMR)
MAN SAIF‑UR‑RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1410 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAN SAIF‑UR‑RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1410 (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 1990 PLP 1410 (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: 1990 PLP 1410 (SCMR) (MAN SAIF‑UR‑RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner,
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 16‑4‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp Office at Lahore, in Appeal No. 28(1) of 1980). ‑‑‑‑R. 8(b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner failed to appear before inquiry officer with the result that it became impossible to complete inquiry against him and consequently Authority taking advantage of provisions of Rule 8(b), dismissed ‑him from service‑‑‑Petitioner having not been able to show sufficient cause for his failure to appear before Inquiry Officer or departmental Authority, was rightly dismissed from service by Authorities below ‑‑‑Peiition for leave to appeal being without merit was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was an Assistant Controller of Import and Export in Azad Kashmir. There were allegations against him that he had issued illegal permits for the import of reconditioned cars. He was served with a charge together with a statement of allegation on 14‑5‑1979 and an inquiry officer was appointed to hold an inquiry. Despite several efforts the petitioner failed to appear before the inquiry officer with the result that it became impossible to complete the inquiry. The Authority took advantage of the provision of Rule 8(b), Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and by an order dated 10‑9‑1979 dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal` from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was under arrest in a case registered against him and for that reason it was not possible for him to participate in the inquiry. This explanation is clearly untenable. He was arrested on 25‑5‑1979 and was released on bail on 6 6‑1979. He has not been able to show why he did not appear before the inquiry officer or the departmental authorities after his release on bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./S‑316/S Petition dismissed.