1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SALEEM BEG Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM BEG Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
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: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM BEG Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
R. S.‑Corruption‑Allegation of‑Must be based on some solid facts‑Subjective opinion of competent authority about adverse repu tation should be supported by some tangible evidence‑Accused should be confronted with such evidence‑Removal from service‑Based upon corruption allegations in character. roll without tangible evidence and confrontation therewith of accused‑Appeal, in circumstances, accepted and removal order set aside‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑
This is an appeal filed by Mr. M. Saleem Beg, ex‑A. S. I., against the order of S. P., Gujrat dated 27‑11‑1977 whereby he was removed from service. His appeal to the D. I.‑G. was rejected on 11‑6-1978. His review petition was also rejected by the I.‑G. The orders of the I.‑G. were conveyed to him on 28‑9‑1978.
2. The appellant joined service as Foot Constable and promoted to the post of A. S. I. in 1970 and confirmed as A.SA. in 1972. M. L. A. issued direc tive on 8‑10‑1977 asking the S. P. or Additional S. P. to take action against the official/officials. As a result of this directive and on account of allegations of corruptions as reflected in the A.C.Rs. of 1972, 1974 and 1976, the appellant was removed from service.
3. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has held in Appeal No. 268/63 of 1977 that the allegations of corruption must be based on some solid facts and the subjective opinion of the competent authority about the adverse reputation of his subordinate should be supported by some tangible evidence and the accused official should be confronted with the same. This does not seem to be the position in this case and the present case seems to be on all four with Appeal No. 268/63. In view of the reasons given in that case, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and orders of removal from service set aside. Appeal accepted.