2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FAYYAZ HUSSAIN Versus NATIONAL RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ |
| Parties | FAYYAZ HUSSAIN Versus NATIONAL RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FAYYAZ HUSSAIN Versus NATIONAL RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Bakhsh, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑8‑1998 passed by Federal Service, Tribunal in Appeal No. 152(P) of 1998). ' Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal decided the appeal of civil servant on merits‑‑‑Contention by civil servant was that Service Tribunal had decided the appeal on question of limitation‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No legal infirmity in findings of the Tribunal was found‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed by Service Tribunal on merits and the contention raised by civil servant was of no consequence as in spite of reversal of the findings of the Tribunal on question of limitation, the end result would be the same‑‑‑No case for interference with judgment of the Tribunal was made out‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The Hon'ble Tribunal held on merits as follows:‑‑ "
3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been considered. The appellant is seeking remedy before us after a period of nearly 14 years. The facts of .the case have been narrated above Show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant, on 25‑11‑1984. stating that he made false complaint to the General Manager, NRTC with copies to high‑ranking officers that a relative of an influential employee of NRTC had supplied substandard goods. On the receipt of this complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and it was found that the complaint made by the appellant was baseless and false. The appellant was given full opportunity of cross‑examining the witnesses and to produce defence witnesses. Inquiry Officer gave a finding that the, charge against the appellant stood proved. The General Manager issued final show‑cause notice, on 29‑12‑1984. After going through the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry report, the competent .Authority, the General Manager, found the appellant guilty of misconduct and he passed an order of dismissal on 31‑12‑1984. The record shows that proper inquiry had been conducted and there was no illegality warranting interference with the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant." There appears to be no legal infirmity in the above findings of the Tribunal. Since the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on merit, the contention that the view taken by the Tribunal that the appeal was also barred by limitation is of no consequence as in spite of reversal of the finding of the learned Tribunal on the question of limitation, the end result will be the same. No case for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal is made out. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no orders as to costs. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./F‑6/S Appeal dismissed.