1989 PLP 1771(2) (SCMR)
WAPDA through its Chairman and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1771(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA through its Chairman and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1771(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1771(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1771(2) (SCMR) (WAPDA through its Chairman and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑3‑1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.374(R) of 1986) ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Removal from service and other consequential punishments‑ Respondent was tried before a Criminal Court for the same accusation which formed the charge against him in the departmental proceedings and was acquitted by criminal Court‑‑Exoneration of respondent by Service Tribunal, being not a question of law of public importance, petition for leave to appeal against such order was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by WAPDA against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondent's appeal against removal from service and other consequential punishments. The respondent was also tried before a Criminal Court for the same accusation which formed the charge against him in the departmental proceedings. He was acquitted by the learned special Judge. We after having perused both the judgments‑‑by the Special Judge and by the Tribunal, are of the view that the exoneration of the respondent by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment does not raise any question of law of public importance. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.B.A. /W‑61/S Petition dismissed