1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Munshi AKBAR ALI Versus THE STATE
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members |
| Parties | Munshi AKBAR ALI Versus THE STATE |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Munshi AKBAR ALI Versus THE STATE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Departmental enquiry ‑ Charge of corruption‑Witnesses having ill‑will against accused‑Findings of enquiry based upon statement of such witnesses‑Evidence not reliable‑Benefit of doubt has to be given to accused‑Appeal against consequential dismissal order accepted by Service Tri bunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Munahi Akbar Ali ex‑Patwari, appellant, has filed this appeal against the order of Collector, Sheikhu pura, dated 24th October, 1977 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner Lahore Division which was rejected on 4th November, 1978.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Manzoor Ahmad ' claiming to be the special attorney of one Miran Bux submitted an application to Collector, Sheikhupura, stating that about one‑and‑half years ago he had met the appellant in connection with the allotment of agricultural land and the appellant had taken Rs. 4,200 as illegal gratification from him. The case was referred to the Tehsildar for enquiry. The Enquiry Officer reported that the charge was not proved but recommended that the appellant be transferred from the circle. The Commissioner, however, disagreed with the report and appointed Ch. Muhammad Hussain, as Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the last enquiry report, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant and ultimately dismissed the appellant from service on. 30tb June, 1976. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner, Lahore who accepted the appeal but remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner who on 24th October, 1977 again dismissed the appellant from service after giving him a show‑cause notice. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
3. The appellant has urged that the Assistant Commissioner has never appreciated that the allegations are false, not warranted by the record and fabricated at the instance of Malik Muhammad Siddique.
4. The parties have been heard and the record seen. It is alleged that Rs. 4,200 were paid in the presence of Malik Siddique and Inayat. Out of this Rs. 1,700 were returned but the appellant refused to pay the balance of Rs. 2,
500. The appellant alleges enmity on the part of Malik Siddique and Inayat and that he had nothing to do with the claim of Miran Bux. Regarding Malik Siddique the allegation of the appellant is that Siddique's daughter had eloped with a relative of the appellant and the appellant had not been able to help Malik Siddique when he came for help in the matter. There is no other independent witness. In view of the fact that ill‑will existed between the appellant and Malik Siddique and Inayat, their evidence cannot be relied upon and' the appellant has to be given the benefit of doubt. The appeal is accepted and the order of dismissal is set aside. Appeal accepted.