1983 PLP S (PLC)
Munshi MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus COLLECTOR/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL
| Citation | 1983 PLP S (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Munshi MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus COLLECTOR/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP S (PLC)?
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 1983 PLP S (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP S (PLC) (Munshi MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus COLLECTOR/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑S. 4 (1) (a)‑Appeal 'before Tribunal‑Maintainable only after availing departmental remedy ‑ Appeal against dismissal for misconduct‑Remedy of departmental appeal provided by respective rules not availed of‑Tribunal, in circumstances, held, had no jurisdiction and appeal, held, not maintainable. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑S. 4 (1) (a)‑Appeal 'before Tribunal‑Maintainable only after availing departmental remedy ‑ Appeal against dismissal for misconduct‑Remedy of departmental appeal provided by respective rules not availed of‑Tribunal, in circumstances, held, had no jurisdiction and appeal, held, not maintainable. Appellant in person. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Munshi Muhammad Ayub ex‑Patwari, Circle Kot Lakha Singh, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 26-6‑1982 passed by the Collector. Narowal, District Sialkot.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be re‑instated in service. ‑‑.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice for wilful absence and arrogant behaviour. The learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector heard him in person and after going through the facts of the case dismissed him from service. He did not file any appeal before the Commissioner which was must for him.
3. In this case the learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to absent himself for the last three hearings as he reportedly remained before the High Court. Even today, the learned counsel for the appellant is absent and has sent an application seeking an adjournment once again. The appellant is present in person. We have heard the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have perused the record very carefully with their assistance.
4. The case is liable to be dismissed on one legal flaw i.e., that the appellant has failed to file an appeal before the Commissioner which was imperative for him and thus this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this case as the same is barred under section 4 (1) (a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The result is that we dismiss the appeal as this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to look into the matter as discussed above. Appeal dismissed.