2009 PLP 99 (YLR)
TALLAT MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus B.Z.U. BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 99 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Saeed Ejaz and S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | TALLAT MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus B.Z.U. BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 99 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 99 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Saeed Ejaz and S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 99 (YLR) (TALLAT MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus B.Z.U. BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khurshid Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Scope
Appellant had contended that impugned order was violative of norms of justice and that Single Judge had failed to apply his judicial mind to the real facts which had not been discussed
Appellant was charge-sheeted for charge of misconduct and to misplace two measurement books in order to prepare new abstracts of bills to release the funds which were withheld by the Project Director
No illegality could be pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge calling for interference through the intra Court appeal
Respondent had not proceeded whimsically or arbitrarily
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Instant Intra-Court Appeal is filed against the impugned order, dated 6-5-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge-in-Chamber whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Contends that the impugned order is in violation of norms of justice; the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber has failed to apply his judicial mind to the real facts which have not been discussed. When confronted with the fact that the petitioner was not promoted on regular basis but was on officiating basis, he could not satisfy us. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for charge of misconduct and to misplace two measurement books Nos. 439 and 443 in order to prepare new abstract of bills to release the funds which were withheld with the Project Director. In view of the situation, no illegality could be pointed out to us in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber calling for interference through the present appeal. The Vice-Chancellor/respondent has not proceeded whimsically or arbitrarily. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./T-32/L Appeal dismissed.