1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN Versus CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS KARACHI and others
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Syed Ali Madad Shah, Chairman and |
| Parties | ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN Versus CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Syed Ali Madad Shah, Chairman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN Versus CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑R.4‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Counsel for appellant not pressing appeal on merit but stating that co‑accused employee who was also involved alongwith appellant was dealt with leniently and was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments whereas appellant was awarded punishment of removal from service‑‑‑Counsel for respondent Government department stated that since allegations were of similar nature, appellant could also be dealt with like co‑accused‑‑‑Order was passed accordingly.
- Abdul Sattar Mughal for Appellant.
- Niaz Ahmad Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989.
- ----R.4---Removal from service---Appeal---Counsel for appellant not pressing appeal on merit but stating that co-accused employee who was also involved alongwith appellant was dealt with leniently and was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments whereas appellant was awarded punishment of removal from service---Counsel for respondent Government department stated that since allegations were of similar nature, appellant could also be dealt with like co-accused---Order was passed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
R.4
Counsel for appellant not pressing appeal on merit but stating that co-accused employee who was also involved alongwith appellant was dealt with leniently and was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments whereas appellant was awarded punishment of removal from service
Counsel for respondent Government department stated that since allegations were of similar nature, appellant could also be dealt with like co-accused
Order was passed accordingly. Abdul Sattar Mughal for Appellant. Niaz Ahmad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).
The learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits but he submits that the appellant was subjected to the punishment of removal from service whereas one Feroz Alam, Inspector, who also was involved alongwith the appellant was dealt with leniently and he was imposed the punishment of stoppage of only four increments as admitted in the written objections/parawise comments filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the appellant also could be dealt with like Feroz Alam, Inspector, as the allegations were of similar nature. We allow the appeal to the extent that the punishment of removal from service awarded on the appellants under order dated 14-5-1985 shall stand modified to that of stoppage of his four increments. We would further order that the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits as admissible. M.Y.H./566/Sr.F. Appeal allowed.