1989 SCMR 2024 (PLP)
and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN ORAKZAI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 2024 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN ORAKZAI Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 2024 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 2024 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 2024 (PLP) (and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN ORAKZAI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. A. Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Service Tribunal dated 20‑4‑1988 in Appeal No. 429 (R) of 1984). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Taking of additional pleas‑‑Petitioner seeking permission for taking additional pleas on the ground that certain important questions of law of general public importance could be raised in addition to questions already raised m the main petition‑‑Permission granted by Supreme Court in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Tribunal did not set aside finding of Enquiry Committee in its entirety but only objected to the procedure thereof which was to the effect that the Enquiry Committee failed to inspect the spot so as to ascertain the merits of the charges‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether in such a case the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case to the Enquiry Committee to inspect the spot and give a fresh finding on the charges after further enquiry and whether the Tribunal should not have ascertained as to action taken against the other officials so as to determine the effect thereof on the case of the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the Federal Service Tribunal, of respondent's service appeal. It had arisen out of an order of his compulsory retirement. Although questions of non‑reading and misreading of evidence and some other questions have been raised in the main petition, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General after some arguments, submitted an application for permission to take up additional pleas which reads as follows: That on going through the entire case, it appears that certain important questions of law of general public importance can be raised in addition 9 to the questions already raised in the main petition. In the interest of justice, petitioner may graciously be permitted to raise following questions of law:‑ (1) The Tribunal did not set aside fording of Enquiry Committee in its entirety but only objected to the procedure thereof. The objection was to the effect that the Enquiry Committee failed to inspect the spot, so as to ascertain the merits of the charges. It is submitted that in such a case, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case to the Inquiry committee to inspect the spot and give a fresh finding on the charges after further enquiry. This would be in accord with law declared by this Hon'ble Court in Mohammad Yameen's case. (2) That the second question of law is that since the Tribunal took into consideration involvement of other officials in the matter. whether the Tribunal should not have ascertained as to action taken against the other officials so as to determine the effect thereof on the case of the respondent. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that petitioner be allowed to amend the main petition so as to take up the above noted points." The request for amendment of the petition is reasonable. It is allowed. The points raised from the petitioners' side including those in the application for amendment, require examination. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. The impugned judgment is suspended meanwhile. Leave granted. M.A.K./P‑102/S