2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL) PSO and others Versus Syed FAIZ ALI JILANI
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL) PSO and others Versus Syed FAIZ ALI JILANI |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL) PSO and others Versus Syed FAIZ ALI JILANI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for petitioners.
- Mian Mehmood Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Faizur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑7‑2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No.329(L) CE‑2000). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 3 & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service on basis of two charges‑‑‑Service Tribunal found first charge as not proved, while penalty imposed was found to be disproportionate to the nature of second charge, thus, converted such penalty into stoppage of one increment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Tribunal, after scanning entire record had found as a matter of fact that first charge had not been proved‑‑‑Such finding of fact did not suffer from any illegality rendering same as without lawful authority‑‑‑Nature of second charge did not justify such major penalty, which had rightly been modified, so that civil servant may mend himself‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Sheikh Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for petitioners. Mian Mehmood Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Faizur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2003. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The respondent who was employee of the petitioners was proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings on two charges.
2. The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the departmental authority on the assumption that both the charges had been proved. The appeal filed by the respondent has been partly accepted in that the Federal Service Tribunal held that charge No.1 had not been proved, as regards second charge, the penalty was found to be disproportionate to the nature of the charge, therefore, the major penalty of dismissal from service has been modified and converted into stoppage of one increment through judgment dated 6‑7‑2001 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that charge No.1 had also been proved, therefore, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was legally justified.
4. In the judgment of the Service Tribunal, the entire evidence and the material brought on the record has been scanned and it was held as a matter of fact that the said charge had not been proved which finding, of fact has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality which would render the judgment as without lawful authority as such, no question of law of public importance as envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution is involved. As regards the other charge of the recovery of dues of the PSO. It has rightly been held that the nature of the same did not justify the major penalty of dismissal from service and the same had justifiably been modified and converted into penalty of stoppage of one increment so that the respondent may mend himself and make the recovery Who is with the petitioners since 1987 as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./G‑7/S Leave refused.