2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NUSRAT Bibi and others Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rahman Ramday, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | NUSRAT Bibi and others Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rahman Ramday, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NUSRAT Bibi and others Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Furqan, D.E.O. and Mukhtar Ahmad, Clerk for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd may, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2‑1‑2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Service Appeals No.1978, 1.979, 1989, 2063 and 2027 of 2000). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3(1)(e), 5, 8 & 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Procurement of service as P.T.C. teachers on basis of bogus and fake appointment orders‑‑‑Authority imposed such penalty on failure of civil servants to show their appointments to be genuine and legal‑‑‑Service Tribunal upheld such penalty‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Findings of fact recorded by Service Tribunal were supported by material available on record‑‑‑No question of law of public importance being involved, Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL UR RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑‑--This order shall dispose of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals Nos.521, 522, 523, 524 and 542‑L of 2003 as all these petitions question the same consolidated judgment, dated 2‑1‑2003 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. The petitioners before us claim to have been appointed as P. T. C. Teachers in the District of Lodhran on different dates between 1990 and 1998. On large scale irregularities having come to the notice of the Government in the appointment of P.T.C. Teachers in the District of Lodhran an Inquiry Committee was constituted which examined each, and every individual appointment and which committee came to the conclusion that the petitioners and some others had never been appointed as P.T.C. Teachers; that they had manoeuvred their induction into service on the strength of fraudulent bogus and fake orders and that they hail thus no right to continue in service. The petitioners were consequently served with show‑cause notices and on their failure to show that their appointments were genuine and legal, they were directed to be removed from service. The petitioners finally reached the Punjab Service Tribunal through appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 which appeals were heard and dismissed by the said learned Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel for the different petitioners and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by them.
4. The learned Tribunal appears to have examined the entire record and could not find any material which could persuade it to intervene for the benefit of the petitioners. These findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal are supported by the material available on record. The learned counsel appearing for various petitioners could not show the existence of any question of law of public importance which could persuade us to grant leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
5. In this view of the matter all these petitions are dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./N‑178/S Leave refused.