2002 SCMR 881 (PLP)
MAHMOOD AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and 2 others‑‑‑Responder
| Citation | 2002 SCMR 881 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and 2 others‑‑‑Responder |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SCMR 881 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 SCMR 881 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 SCMR 881 (PLP) (MAHMOOD AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and 2 others‑‑‑Responder). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑9‑2000 passed by‑ Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.775‑K of 1998). ‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant being employee of Pakistan Rangers, was involved in an act of motorcycle snatching‑‑‑Departmental inquiry was conducted, charge was framed and the civil servant was convicted and was also dismissed from service‑‑‑Departmental appeal as well as appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed‑‑‑Contention of the civil servant was that opportunity of fair trial was not given to him‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant was caught red‑handed by police alongwith robbed motorcycle ‑‑‑Co‑accused in the case had absconded and was still at large‑‑‑Where finding of the Service Tribunal was in consonance with the facts available on record, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑--The petitioner has impugned the judgment, dated 25‑9‑2000 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, whereby his Appeal No.775‑K of 1998 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had served as permanent Lance Naik/Operator in the Bhitai Rangers at Karach till 10‑3‑1998. The allegation against him was that while serving in 51 Wing B.R., Karachi, he assisted Sepoy Muhammad Tariq in snatching a motorcycle from a person at Drig Road, Karachi. He was also found guilty of misconduct as member of the force.
3. An enquiry was conducted against him by a Committee, which consisted of 3 officers, namely Lt.‑Col. Nusrat Nawaz, Wing Comd, Captain Asim Siddique Butt and Inspector Muhammad Saleem.
4. Charge was framed against him under section 15(1) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, read with Rule 4 of P.R. (E.D.' and A) Rules, 1967. Charge was proved and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 4 months' R.I., his rank was reduced to sepoy and was also dismissed from service. It appears that he had also confessed his guilt.
5. On 16‑3‑1998, he preferred departmental appeal before Director, General, Pakistan Rangers, Sindh, Karachi, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he approached Federal Service Tribunal regarding dismissal from service alone but without any success and his appeal was dismissed by the judgment, which has been impugned in this petition.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that opportunity of fair trial was not given to the petitioner and for sufficient time he was confined and kept in solitary confinement. Learned counsel also argued that, though at the stage of enquiry 6 witnesses were examined, but he was not permitted to defend himself according to the established judicial norms.
7. Above contentions have no force. Record reveals that the police had caught him red‑handed alongwith robbed motorcycle. Co‑accused absconded away and is still at large. Finding of the Tribunal is in consonance with the facts available on record. No interference is warranted.
8. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑330/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.