1987 PLP 190 (SCMR)
Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 190 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 190 (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 190 (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 190 (SCMR) (Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 490/1325 of 1981.) ‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner as a result of departmental proceedings, removed from service with direction that a huge amount representing loss caused to Government be recovered from him‑‑Departmental appeal as well as appeal before Service Tribunal against such punishment dismissed‑‑Action taken against petitioner found to be in accordance with relevant disciplinary rules‑‑No illegality or irregularity in departmental proceedings pointed out‑‑No substantial question of public importance, having arisen in case leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner as a result of departmental proceedings, removed from service with direction that a huge amount representing loss caused to Government be recovered from him‑‑Departmental appeal as well as appeal before Service Tribunal against such punishment dismissed‑‑Action taken against petitioner found to be in accordance with relevant disciplinary rules‑‑No illegality or irregularity in departmental proceedings pointed out‑‑No substantial question of public importance, having arisen in case leave to appeal refused. Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th December, 1986. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑5‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the departmental action taken against him.
2. The petitioner was serving as Food Grain Inspector at Doonga Boonga in Tehsil Bahawalnagar. He purchased 3623.5 metric tons of wheat during the season 1976‑77 and stored it in different locations. On the allegation that he was selling wholesome wheat as damaged wheat his stores were raided by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment under the supervision of a Magistrate. He was arrested and remained in custody till he was bailed out. After his release he did not attend his office on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the wheat purchased by him was dispatched to other locations. It was then found that there was a shortage of 346.85 metric tons. Consequently departmental proceedings were initiated against him. As a result of the departmental proceedings he was removed from service and a direction was given that a sum of Rs.3,95,409 which represented the value of the missing wheat be recovered from him. He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Director of Food. He then approached the Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal.
3. The action has been taken against the petitioner in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules. Both the penalties awarded to him are provided by the said rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity that might possibly have been committed during the course of the departmental proceedings. This is an ordinary case where disciplinary action has been taken by the Government in accordance with the service rules applicable to the petitioner. No substantial question of public importance arises here. The petition is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.