1989 PLP 1481 (SCMR)
Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Agha YOUSAF AHMAD KHAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1481 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Agha YOUSAF AHMAD KHAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1481 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1481 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1481 (SCMR) (Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Agha YOUSAF AHMAD KHAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.Farani, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th August 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑3‑1983, passed in Intro‑Court Appeal No.67 of 1983). ‑‑‑ Bank employee‑‑Mere resignation from service would not absolve a Bank employee of irregularities committed by him during his service.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑3‑1983.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade III Officer in the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and in the course of service he was promoted to Grade II Officer. On 10th May, 1981 the petitioner was charged‑sheeted for irregularities which was replied to but instead the petitioner was served with supplementary charge‑sheet. A reply to this was also given, in response to which the petitioner was directed to arrange adjustment of house building loan amounting to Rs.75,420 which was accordingly done and the petitioner also submitted his resignation. The Bank instead of accepting the resignation of the petitioner, vide its letter, dated 21‑10‑1981, informed the petitioner that he was being treated as absent from duty and that he had been charge‑sheeted accordingly. In reply to the above the petitioner informed the Bank authorities that since he had tendered his resignation from 25‑8‑1981, the petitioner's relationship of any kind whatsoever with the Bank stood severed and appended along with his letter pay order for Rs.4,530 against the sum in lieu of notice period.
3. Against the charge‑sheet the petitioner personally appeared on 30‑10‑1982 before the Inquiry Officer who was informed of the severance of his relationship with the Bank and was called upon to drop the inquiry forthwith as being without jurisdiction but the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the matter. The above proceeding was challenged through a writ petition which was dismissed on 15‑3‑1983 and his Intro‑Court Appeal met the same fate on 28‑3‑1983.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His objection that after resignation the Inquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter has been squarely dealt with by the learned Judges of the High Court and A no reasons exist for us to come to a different conclusion. Mere resignation from service would not absolve the petitioner of irregularities committed by him during his service with the Bank.
5. Thus finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑859/S Petition dismissed.