1989 PLP 1671 (SCMR)
ASHFAQ MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN STATE OILS COMPANY LTD.
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1671 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | ASHFAQ MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN STATE OILS COMPANY LTD. |
| Primary Law | Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act (XVII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1671 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act (XVII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1671 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1671 (SCMR) (ASHFAQ MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN STATE OILS COMPANY LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Oadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Mco Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court dated 26‑11‑1983 in I.C.A. No.56/83). ‑‑‑S.16‑‑Ex‑Depot Officer, Pakistan State Oil Company was dismissed from service as he was found guilty of misappropriation of petrol‑‑Neither provision of S.16 of Act, 1974 had been violated nor terms and conditions of petitioner's service were altered‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without merit was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Oadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Mco Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988. GULAM MAJADDID, J.‑‑Ashfaq Muhammad, Ex‑Depot Officer, Pakistan State Oil Company was dismissed from service as he was found guilty of misappropriating 91(10 litres of petrol. He invoked the Constitution jurisdiction. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by order dated 4‑10‑1983 dismissed the petition observing as under:‑ "The perusal of charge sheet and enquiry report discloses that petitioner was alleged to have misappropriated one tank lorry by omitting to make its entry in the accounts. No service rules have been placed on record to show the procedure prescribed for dismissal and none has been referred to by the learned counsel. The perusal of the charge‑sheet and enquiry report do not make out any case for coming to the conclusion that petitioner did not know of the allegation against him. There is no material placed on this Court's File to show that the impugned order of Petitioner's dismissal was passed without lawful authority"
2. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an Intra‑Court Appeal The Bench who heard the appeal confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal‑
3. Relying on section 1 of the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974 which is to the following effect, learned counsel argued that the dismissal of the petitioner was contrary to (he aforesaid provision:‑ "CONTINUANCE IN SERVICE.‑‑In the case of a managed company, all persons employed in, by or for the purpose of the business of the company by whomsoever appointed or engaged, shall continue in their respective employments on tile same remuneration and other conditions of service as were applicable to them immediately before the appointment of the Managing Director in respect of that company, unless the Managing Director directs otherwise to a‑particular case or their terms and conditions of service are altered in accordance with the law or any rules applicable to such managed company." Learned counsel was unable to point out how the afore‑said provision had been violated.
4. He was repeatedly asked as to whether there was any order by the Managing Director whereby the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service had been altered to which he replied that there was no such order. We don't, therefore, find any merit in this petition for leave to appeal which is here by dismissed. M.A.K./A‑539/S Petition dismissed.