1990 PLP 560 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 560 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 560 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 560 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 560 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 10‑8‑1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 330/527 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑‑ Civil servant, a Patwari, was charged of having made unauthorised interpolations in the Revenue Record which fact was admitted by him explaining that as the earlier entries were erroneous, he. had merely corrected them‑‑‑Civil servant's such explanation was not found to be satisfactory either by the Departmental Authorities or by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Contention raised before Supreme Court related in substance, to appreciation of evidence‑‑‑‑No substantial question of law of public importance was pointed out for consideration‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a Patwari in Tehsil Lodhran of Multan district. After a regular departmental inquiry he was dismissed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which also remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main allegation against the petitioner was that he had made unauthorised interpolations in the Revenue Record. He admitted during the course of the inquiry that he had made certain changes in the record but explained that as the earlier entries were erroneous, he had merely corrected them. This explanation was not found satisfactory either by the departmental authorities or by the learned Tribunal.
3. The contention raised before us relates in substance to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law of public importance arises here for our consideration. The petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑970/S Petition dismissed.