1989SCMR1530 (PLP)
Munshi NUR AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1530 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | Munshi NUR AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1530 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1530 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1530 (PLP) (Munshi NUR AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that State had been impleaded and the Commissioner being a subordinate functionary of the State should be taken to be impleaded indirectly. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal could have itself impleaded the Commissioner and corrected that defect, if any, in presentation of the appeal. Finally attention has been drawn to Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules providing that where appeals do not conform to that rule they are required to be returned by the Registrar for rectification within 14 days. According to the learned counsel the same procedure could be adopted for the correction of this defect.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 14‑10‑1982 passed in Case No.103/1625 of 1982). (a) Punjab Service Tribunal Rules, 1977‑‑ ‑‑‑R.7‑‑Filing of appeal without impleading Appellate Authority‑‑Competent authority for passing order was Assistant Commissioner Commissioner as Appellate Authority passed order notwithstanding the fact that that was an order of affirmance, the order of Collector merged into that of Commissioner‑‑Appeal filed without impleading Commissioner‑‑R.7 remained uncomplied with and had been rightly invoked by Tribunal‑‑Tribunal could direct impleading of Commissioner on request of petitioner‑‑Tribunal was not obliged to impaled the Commissioner in absence of such request. (b) Punjab Service Tribunal Rules, 1977 ‑‑‑Rr.6 & 7‑‑Defect in appeal‑‑Contention that R.6 provides that where appeals do not conform to that Rule they are required to be returned by the Registrar for rectification within 14 days‑‑Held. reference to R.6 was of no avail as it related to the facts mentioned in R.6 and not to the defects of the nature mentioned in R.7
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner formerly a Revenue Patwari, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunai, dated 14‑10‑1982 dismissing his appeal for failure to implead the necessay party, in terms of Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules. After a show‑cause notice had been served on the petitioner and he had been heard in the matter the Assistant Commissioner passed the order of his removal from service. He appealed to the Commissioner who dismissed appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal in Which he impleaded the State through A.C./Collector Shorkot omitting to implead the Authority against whose order he had come up in appeal namely, the Commissioner. An objection was taken at the hearing of the appeal which prevailed with the Tribunal and finding the appeal to be incompetent for necessary party, the Tribunal dismissed it. Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that State had been impleaded and the Commissioner being a subordinate functionary of the State should be taken to be impleaded indirectly. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal could have itself impleaded the Commissioner and corrected that defect, if any, in presentation of the appeal. Finally attention has been drawn to Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules providing that where appeals do not conform to that rule they are required to be returned by the Registrar for rectification within 14 days. According to the learned counsel the same procedure could be adopted for the correction of this defect. Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules required that the competent authority should be impleaded. The competent authority for passing the order was the Assistant Commissioner and for hearing the appeal was the Commissioner. The Appellate Authority having passed an order notwithstanding the fact it was an order of affirmance, the order of the Collector merged into that of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, Rule 7 remained uncomriied with and has been rightly invoked by the Tribunal. The tribunal could certainly direct the impleading of the Commissioner but it appears that no request was made by the petitioner for getting the Commissioner impleaded. In the absence of such request the Tribunal was not obliged to implead the Commissioner. Reference to Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules is of no avail because it relates to the facts mentioned in Rule 6 and not to defects of the nature mentioned in Rule
7. The Tribunal has taken a correct view of the law and has passed an order which it was competent to pass in its discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby refused. M.A.K./N‑162/S Leave to appeal refused.