1991 PLP 1523 (SCMR)
ALAMGIR and another — Petitioners Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1523 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | ALAMGIR and another — Petitioners Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1523 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1523 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1523 (SCMR) (ALAMGIR and another — Petitioners Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal for the judgment and order dated 29-2-1988, of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals No. 415/397 and 416/398 of 1985).
R. 6(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 25 & 212(3)
Civil servant-- Charge of misconduct
Show-cause notice issued to civil servants dispensing with inquiry under R. 6(3), Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
Penalties of reduction in pay and warning to be careful in future, were imposed upon civil servants
Civil servants' departmental appeals and appeals before Service Tribunal were rejected
Civil servants raised the contention that R. 6(3), Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, was ultra vires of Art. 25 of the Constitution and that actual culprits responsible for theft and damage to property were apprehended, punished and compensation for loss caused to Government was recovered from them which was deposited in Government treasury and that such facts had not been considered by the Service Tribunal
Contentions raised by petitioners required examination
Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Waris Meah v The State and The State Bank of Pakistan PLD 1957 SC 157 and The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and another AIR 1952 SC 75 rel.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J: ‑‑This order will dispose of two petitions (C.P.S.L.As. Nos. 363 of 1988 and 364 of 1988) filed by Alamgir and Raja Zafar Iqbal, petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against two judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 29‑2‑1988, dismissing their appeals.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that Alamgir and Raja Zafar Iqbal petitioners, were Forest Guard and Forester respectively with the Forest Department, Khanewal, Multan Division. It came to the notice of the Divisional Officer, Multan that two big Shisham trees had been removed from Chaks Nos. 9 and 10 and that irrigation water has been sold during Eid holidays from Chak No.9 where both the petitioners were posted. The Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer, Piranwala East Sub‑Division, was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry into the matter, which he did. The said officer found that both the petitioners were responsible for the illicit removal of one Shisham tree from Chak No. 9 and for damage to another in Chak No.
10. He, however, did not find the petitioners guilty of selling water. The Divisional Forest Officer thereupon issued a show cause notice to the petitioners dispensing with the inquiry under Rules 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The said officer ultimately, imposed the undernoted penalties on the petitioners: (1) Mr. Alamgir F. Guard. (i) Reduced to the minimum of basic pay scale i.e. Rs.460 per month. (ii) Character roll warning to be careful in future. (2) Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Forester. (i) Reduced to the minimum of basic pay scale i.e. Rs.520 per month. (ii) Character roll warning to be careful in future. Both the petitioners filed appeals before the Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan, against the said decisions, which appeals were dismissed on 11‑6‑1985. Both the petitioners thereupon preferred appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which were also rejected on 29‑2‑1988. The petitioners now pray for leave to appeal against the said judgments.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 are ultra vires of Article
25. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited Waris Meah v. The State and The State Bank of Pakistan P L D 1957 SC 157 and The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and another A I R 1952 SC
75. It is further submitted that the actual culprits responsible for the theft and damage to the Shisham trees were apprehended, punished and compensation for the loss caused to the Government was also recovered from them, which was deposited in the Government Treasury and these facts have not been considered.
4. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination. Leave is granted in both the petitions, subject to each of the petitioners furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,
000. The appeals shall be heard on the present record. AA./A‑719/S Leave granted.