1987 PLP 875 (SCMR)
SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MASTER OF THE MINT, PAKISTAN MINT, LAHORE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 875 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MASTER OF THE MINT, PAKISTAN MINT, LAHORE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 875 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 875 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 875 (SCMR) (SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MASTER OF THE MINT, PAKISTAN MINT, LAHORE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner's counsel.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑3‑1981 in I.C.A. No. 38 of 1975). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Natural justice, principles of‑‑Contention that before making order of termination of his Service, petitioner was not given a show‑cause notice nor supplied with a copy of Inquiry Officer's report and consequently order of termination was bad in law as it offended against the principles of natural justice, held, could not be accepted in view of decision of Supreme Court in P E ‑D 1981 S C 225 Contention that certain important documents were withheld from petitioner during course of inquiry found to be factually incorrect‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah P L D 1981 S C 225 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah P L D 1981 S C 225 ref. Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner's counsel. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 24‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Intra‑Court Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of the writ petition wherein he had challenged the order of termination of his services.
2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Bullion Keeper in the Pakistan Mint at Lahore. There were allegations of misconduct, inefficiency and subversive activities against him. Consequently, a charge‑sheet was issued to him on 31‑8‑1974 and departmental proceedings were taken. An inquiry was held into the allegations leveled against him. To begin with, he participated in the inquiry but later he boycotted the proceedings. In due course, the Inquiry Committee submitted its finding to the Master of Mint who terminated his services. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order by which his services were terminated. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that before approaching the High Court the petitioner ought to have availed of the departmental remedies. The petitioner then preferred an Intra‑Court Appeal. It was heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench examined all the grounds which the petitioner had raised in this petition, found them without substance and dismissed the appeal.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that before the order of termination was made he was not given a show‑cause notice nor supplied with a copy of the inquiry Officer's report; consequently, the order of termination was bad in law as it offended the principle of natural justice. It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the decision of this Court reported as Dawood Cotton Hills Ltd. Guftar Shah P L D 1981 S C
225. It is then contended that certain important documents were withheld from the petitioner during the course of the inquiry. This is factually incorrect. The only document to which the petitioner has been able to refer was duly exhibited during the course of the inquiry and the petitioner, if he so wanted, could ask the Inquiry Committee to summon the author of the document for the purpose of cross‑examination. This he did not do. On the other hand, he chose to boycott the inquiry proceedings. He cannot now complain that the document in question was withheld from him.
4. We find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.