2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed HUSNAIN AAMER Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAROWAL
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | Syed HUSNAIN AAMER Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAROWAL |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed HUSNAIN AAMER Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAROWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Lateef, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 15-7-2003 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.2460 of 2002).
Mere allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer would not be sufficient to assume bias.
Art. 212(3)
Findings of Service Tribunal and departmental authorities
Supreme Court would not substitute its findings for such findings. Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others 2001 SCMR 269 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 15-7-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.2460 of 2002.
2. The petitioner, a former tax clerk in Town Committee Qila Sobha Singh, District Narowal, was proceeded against departmentally under the provisions of Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, on various allegations. He was dismissed from service, by order, dated 11-7-2002, passed by the Tehsil Municipal Officer, Narowal. His representation there-against remained undecided. Therefore, he preferred appeal No.2460 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dated 15-7-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor the proceedings against him were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The petitioner had already been acquitted of the criminal charge against him. Therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others (2001 SCMR 269). The learned counsel submitted that the inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry against the petitioner, was biased against him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the available record. We find that a regular inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer during course of which evidence was recorded, in the presence of the petitioner who had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him. There were serious charges of misappropriation of public money as well as prolonged absence from duty. Mere allegation of bias against the inquiry officer was not sufficient to assume bias. The Tribunal after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly concluded that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. We are not expected to substitute our findings for that of the Tribunal as well as that of the departmental authorities. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan so as to warrant interference by this Court. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. S.A.K./H-36/SC Leave refused.