1989 PLP 1734 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑11 Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1734 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑11 Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (19731 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1734 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (19731 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1734 (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: 1989 PLP 1734 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑11 Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 20‑8‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 352 (L) of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Three senior officers of petitioner's department observed him while committing irregularities‑‑Such officers had no reason to make false accusations against petitioner‑‑No case for interference with order of Tribunal, held, was made out‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Three senior officers of petitioner's department observed him while committing irregularities‑‑Such officers had no reason to make false accusations against petitioner‑‑No case for interference with order of Tribunal, held, was made out‑‑Petition dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑The petitioner was a Telephone Operator working at the Lahore Airport Telegraph Office. He was required to collect money at the rate of 85 paisas per call from the members of the public who used the facility of telephone installed in his office and to issue receipts to them. On 26‑12‑1979, the Deputy Engineer and two Assistant Engineers visited the petitioner's office incognito and watched the petitioner. They noticed that he was neither issuing any receipt nor, occasionally, returning the change. He was charge‑sheeted and after a regular departmental inquiry, by way of penalty, his pay was reduced to the minimum of his time scale. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal partly accepted the appeal inasmuch as the penalty imposed upon him was varied to reduction by two steps in the time scale. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that any case for interference with the order of the learned Tribunal has been made out. The petitioner does not dispute that three senior officers of his department observed him in his office while committing irregularities. It was not his case that these officers had any reason to make false accusations against him. The petition is dismissed. M.A.K./B‑109/S Petition dismissed.