1990 PLP 559 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 559 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 559 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 23rd October, 1985 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 83 (L) of 1983), ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant was awarded penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without future effect, on account of misconduct‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal was rejected by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Civil servant, during his trial did not dispute that he was present at the time when illegal gratification was paid to his colleague and that tainted money was recovered from his person‑‑‑Civil servant's explanation that after receiving the illegal gratification, his colleague had passed on the money to him for safe custody, showed that he admitted to be an accessory after the fact‑‑‑Departmental Authorities were thus justified in taking the view that civil servant's conduct was highly objectionable‑‑‑Service Tribunal had thus good reason not to interfere with the order of Departmental Authorities‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was serving as an Assistant in the Revenue office of the respondent Authority at Hafizabad. He alongwith another person was involved in a corruption case and was arrested. He was tried by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption but was ultimately acquitted. Soon after his arrest, he was placed under suspension. After his acquittal, he was reinstated ` service.
2. The department found that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable. He was served with a show‑cause notice and after taking into consideration the explanation offered by him the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without future effect was imposed upon him; further, it was directed that he should not be paid any salary beyond the suspension allowance and the period of suspension should be treated as leave without pay. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that at the trial before the Special Judge, the petitioner did not dispute that he was present at the time when the illegal gratification was paid to his colleague and that the tainted money was recovered from his person. His explanation was that after receiving the illegal gratification his colleague had passed on the money to him for safe custody. It would thus appear that he admitted to be an accessory after the fact. In the circumstances, the departmental authorities were justified in taking the view that his conduct was highly objectionable. The learned Tribunal had therefore good reason not to interfere with the order of the departmental authorities. In the circumstances, we dismiss this petition. A.A./M‑957/S Petition dismissed.