1990 PLP 266 (SCMR)
WAPDA‑‑Petitioner, Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 266 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan; JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA‑‑Petitioner, Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 266 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 266 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan; JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 266 (SCMR) (WAPDA‑‑Petitioner, Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 1st October, 1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No. 215 (L) of 1983). ‑‑‑S. 4(1)(a)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant approached Service Tribunal without availing remedy of departmental appeal‑‑ Service Tribunal reduced penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Tribunal was not competent to entertain appeal as provided by proviso (a) to S. 4 (1) of the Act.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 4(1)(a)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant approached Service Tribunal without availing remedy of departmental appeal‑‑ Service Tribunal reduced penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Tribunal was not competent to entertain appeal as provided by proviso (a) to S. 4 (1) of the Act. Ch. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent was serving the petitioner authority as an Assistant Lines‑man. On the charge of unauthorised absence from duty departmental proceedings were taken against him and he was dismissed from service by the Executive Engineer. He served a grievance notice upon the Executive Engineer but when he failed to elicit any response to the notice, he filed a grievance petition before the local Labour Court. The grievance petition was returned to him on account of lack of jurisdiction. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that the charge of unauthorised absence had been established but reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner authority seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
2. In support of this petition, it is inter alia contended that a departmental appeal was available to the respondent from the order of the Executive Engineer. He did not avail this remedy. That being so, as provided by proviso (a) to section 4 (1), Service Tribunals Act the Tribunal was not competent to entertain his appeal. To consider this and the other questions, leave to appeal is granted. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The interim order made on 17‑4‑1989 should continue during the pendency of this appeal. M.A.K./W‑67/S Leave granted.