1989 PLP 1139 (SCMR)
GHULAM GHAUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA, FAISALABAD REGION, FAISALABAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1139 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM GHAUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA, FAISALABAD REGION, FAISALABAD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1139 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1139 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1139 (SCMR) (GHULAM GHAUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA, FAISALABAD REGION, FAISALABAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any rule of the WAPDA which may come to his rescue but relied on the Fundamental Rule 54 and C.S.R. 73. These being general rules could be invoked. His contention is that it was a case of clear acquittal entitling the petitioner to full pay for the period of his absence from duty.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 8‑1‑1984 passed in Appeal No.50(L)/1980). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Fundamental Rules, R.54‑‑Civil Services Rules (Punjab), R.7.3‑ Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner was subjected to an anti‑corruption raid by a Magistrate; tainted money was recovered from him, he had an explanation for that; he was convicted by the Trial Court but acquitted on appeal inter alia on the ground that conversation was not heard and the complainant's statement by itself was not sufficient Competent Authority considered that acquittal was not honourable, did not allow him the full pay for the period he remained suspended and absent from duty Service Tribunal examined the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it was not an honourable acquittal and the refusal of full pay for the period he remained absent from duty was justified‑‑Held, Tribunal had examined at length the nature of evidence produced in the case and the reasons for which the acquittal was recorded, which justified the formation of opinion by Tribunal on the subject and appraisal of material by the Tribunal raised no question of law which required further examination in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution‑‑Leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 8‑1‑1984 whereby his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal and he was not allowed full pay for the period of his suspension on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable. The petitioner was subjected to an Anti‑Corruption raid by a Magistrate. The tainted money was recovered from him. He had an explanation for it. He was convicted by the trial Court but acquitted on appeal inter alia on the ground that the conversation was not heard and the complainant's statement by itself was not sufficient. The competent authority considered that the acquittal was not honourable, did not allow him the full pay for the period he remained suspended and absent from duty. The Tribunal examined the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it was not an honourable acquittal and the refusal of full pay for the period he remained absent from duty, was justified. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any rule of the WAPDA which may come to his rescue but relied on the Fundamental Rule 54 and C.S.R.
73. These being general rules could be invoked. His contention is that it was a case of clear acquittal entitling the petitioner to full pay for the period of his absence from duty. The Tribunal has examined at length the nature of the evidence produced in the case and the reasons for which the acquittal was recorded. It justifies the formation of opinion by the Tribunal on the subject and we do not E think that the appraisal of the material by the Tribunal raises any such question of law which may require further examination in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused. M.BA./G‑180/S Leave refused.