2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD BAHAWALPUR and others Versus KHALID MEHMOOD JABLA
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD BAHAWALPUR and others Versus KHALID MEHMOOD JABLA |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD BAHAWALPUR and others Versus KHALID MEHMOOD JABLA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aziz Ahmed Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-8-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.2814 of 2001).
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal
Plea raised by the authorities was that the Service Tribunal could not set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement awarded to civil servant
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether major penalty of retirement could have been set aside which was imposed after completion of all mandatory formalities as envisaged under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by the Service Tribunal without any lawful justification by ignoring the factual findings of departmental authority. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.--It is, inter alia contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon respondent cannot be considered as harsh and learned Punjab Service Tribunal has transgressed its authority while modifying the major penalty without any rhyme and reason and directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.81,570 from the total alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.4,07,850 without lawful justification. It is next contended that in fact no penalty whatsoever has been imposed and the respondent has been set free by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal which could not have been done in view of severe accusation.
2. Respondent is present in person and has supported the judgment impugned and contended that the verdict given by the Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law as no offence whatsoever has been committed by him and the amount in question has already been deposited. It is further submitted that joining report has been submitted but order of the Punjab Service Tribunal is yet to be implemented.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent in person we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question as to whether the major penalty of retirement could have been set aside imposed after completion of all the mandatory formalities as envisaged under the Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by the Punjab Service Tribunal without any lawful justification by ignoring[A the factual findings of departmental authority. The operation of impugned judgment shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal which may be fixed at some early date being a service matter. M.H./D-33/SC Leave grante