1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SENIOR POST MASTER, G.P.O., MARDAN and another Versus NOOR DIN, POST MASTER, GUJAR GARHI, MARDAN
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | SENIOR POST MASTER, G.P.O., MARDAN and another Versus NOOR DIN, POST MASTER, GUJAR GARHI, MARDAN |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SENIOR POST MASTER, G.P.O., MARDAN and another Versus NOOR DIN, POST MASTER, GUJAR GARHI, MARDAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Riazul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 17-7-1995, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 10(P) of 1995).
Art. 212(3)
Contention raised by the Authority had been adequately considered by the Service Tribunal and repelled for valid reasons reflected in the judgment which did not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference
No question of law of public importance was involved in the issue
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 17-7-1995, passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby it accepted the service appeal filed by the respondent.
2. The respondent Noor Din was working as Postmaster, Sub-Post Office, Police Station Mills, Mardan. He was charge-sheeted on 5-8-1989 for renewing M.V.T. Registration Books without charging admissible penalty thereon, and thereby causing loss of Rs.28,840 in revenue to the Government. The respondent contested the charge and his defence was that all the Registration Books were renewed within a month of the grace period as provided by Rule 14 of the Provincial Tax Rules read with F .R.9(18), and as such no penalty was to be charged from the book owners even if it was renewed on the last day of the month, as the grace period allowed under the rules was one calendar month, which included the last day of the month. The reply of the respondent did not find favour with the Senior Postmaster, Mardan, who imposed the penalty in the form of recovery of Rs.28,840 from the respondent.
3. The respondent filed appeal to the departmental authority, which was rejected. He thereafter filed appeal before the learned Service Tribunal who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent It was observed by the Tribunal that the grace period of one calendar month included the last day of the month, and as the M.V.T. Registration Books were admittedly renewed on the last day of the month, the penalty amount could not be recovered from the book holders. The Tribunal further observed that during the relevant. period the senior officers of the post office made 22 inspections of this post office and examined the entire record/books and ledgers of the post office, but found no irregularity or omission/commission in collection of the tax by the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the department has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that one calendar month of grace period provided by the rules did not include the last date of the month, and, therefore, the Service Tribunal was not right in accepting the appeal of the respondent.
4. We see no force in the contention. This very contention was raised and adequately considered by the learned Tribunal and repelled for valid reasons reflected in the judgment, and the same do not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference. Also, no question of law of public importance is involved. This petition is accordingly dismissed, and leave is refused. M.B.A./S-40/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.