1992 PLP 1860 (SCMR)
EJAZ NABI SALIMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION,
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1860 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lane and |
| Parties | EJAZ NABI SALIMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1860 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1860 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal Lane and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1860 (SCMR) (EJAZ NABI SALIMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21‑1‑1988 passed in Appeals Nos.344/840 and 462/1081 of 1986). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑-‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Enhancement of punishment by Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Service Tribunal could, in appeal filed by affected civil servant against departmental punishment, enhance the punishment. Salahuddin Butt v. Punjab Service Tribunal and 3 others 1988 SCMR 497 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Enhancement of punishment by Service Tribunal in appeal filed by affected civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Enhancement of punishment, direct or indirect, was not within powers of Service Tribunal. Salahuddin Butt and others v. Punjab Service Tribunal and others PLD 1989 SC 597 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Matter on which leave to appeal had not been granted, could not be. permitted to be raised at the time of hearing of appeal. Director Food, Government , of the Punjab, Lahore and another v. Syed Abu Bakar Shah and another 1990 SCMR 1412 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the Service Tribunal could in appeal filed by the affected civil servant against departmental punishment enhance the punishment. At the stage of leave grant, a similar case Salahuddin Butt v. Punjab Service Tribunal and 3 others (1988 SCMR 497) was taken note of wherein leave to appeal had been granted to examine the same question of law.
2. The facts of the case show that the appellant was serving as a Food grains Inspector, at P.R. Centre, Shergarh, District Okara. A shortage in wheat stock was discovered. A departmental enquiry was held wherein, he alongwith the Assistant Food Controller was found guilty of negligence and both were called upon to reimburse to the extent of loss in the ratio of 60 to 40 per cent. Both had appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeal of the Assistant Food Controller and cleared him of all responsibility in the matter but while rejecting the appeal of the appellant passed on the extent of loss which was made, the responsibility of the Assistant Food Controller also the responsibility of the appellant thereby enhancing the penalty in the matter of reimbursement.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the case which was noted at the time of leave granting order has been decided and reported as Salahuddin Butt and others v. Punjab Service Tribunal and others (PLD 1989 SC 597); such an enhancement, direct or indirect, has been held to be not within the powers of the Service Tribunal. Hence on that score alone, this appeal is liable to succeed and the order of the Tribunal to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to take us further to the facts of the case with a view to demonstrate on the strength of Director Food, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another v. Syed Abu Bakar Shah and another (1990 SCMR 1412) that no responsibility for the loss could be placed on the appellant as the enquiry in the manner provided in law had not taken place, and storage conditions have not been accounted for. As this is a matter on which leave to appeal has not been granted, we would not permit it to be raised at this stage.
5. In the circumstances, appeal is allowed only to the extent that the order of the Tribunal enhancing the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside and order of the department dated 30‑10‑1985 ordering recovery to the extent of 40 per cent. from the appellant is restored.. No order is made as to costs. A.A./E-28/S Order accordingly.