1990 PLP 1004 (SCMR)
NAWABUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1004 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAWABUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1004 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1004 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court 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 PLP 1004 (SCMR) (NAWABUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3‑2‑1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 115(L) of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner, removed from service on allegation of fraud, himself admitted allegation against him before inquiry and also during course of inquiry and refunded amount drawn by him fraudulently‑‑‑Departmental Authorities and Service Tribunal acting on admissions made by petitioner, removed him from service‑‑‑No question of law of public importance having arisen for consideration petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was posted as Accounts Assistant (Power) in the Area Electricity Board at Faisalabad. On the allegation, mainly, that he had fraudulently prepared additional sheets of pay bills in fictitious names of defunct and surplus staff and had drawn the amounts of the said bills, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. After a regular inquiry he was removed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Authority which proved unfruitful. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It appears from the record that before the inquiry and during the course of inquiry he admitted the allegation against him and refunded the amounts drawn by him.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was innocent and that his immediate superior was responsible for the preparation of the false bills and drawl of the amounts thereof. He relied upon certain receipts which were allegedly given to him by his immediate superior officer. As regards the admissions attributed to him he alleged that these were extracted from him under threats of physical violence.
4. The departmental authorities and the learned Tribunal have acted on the admissions made by the petitioner. They do not appear to have accepted his explanation with regard to the circumstances under which these were made. The departmental authorities have declared the receipts upon which the petitioner relies to be forgeries. The controversies raised in support of this petition relate to questions of fact. No question of law of public importance arises for consideration of this Court. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./N‑224/S Petition dismissed.