1994 PLP 240 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (AC&R), TARBELA DAM PROJECT, WAPDA,
| Citation | 1994 PLP 240 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Bald Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (AC&R), TARBELA DAM PROJECT, WAPDA, |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 240 (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 1994 PLP 240 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Bald Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 240 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (AC&R), TARBELA DAM PROJECT, WAPDA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 3‑2‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 12(R) of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions of law of public importance to the effect; whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry; whether such trial had not materially prejudiced civil servant as he was prevented from cross‑examining an important witness whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of civil servant; whether stand taken by that witness was not itself contradictory; and whether Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after lapse of a year, period for which reduction in rank of civil servant was ordered as a punishment, service appeal had become infructuous.
Judgment & Decree
Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the following questions of law of public importance arising in the case:‑‑ (1) Whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry? (2) Whether such a trial has not materially prejudiced the petitioner as he was prevented from cross‑examining an important witness (Abdul ‑Hame6d) whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of the A petitioner? (3) Whether the stand taken by Abdul Hameed was not itself contradictory? In reply to the charge‑sheet he pleaded that he had handed over the measurement book to the petitioner. Soon thereafter on 28‑4‑1989 he reported to the Police that the measurement book was lost while in his custody and was untraceable. (4) Whether the Chairman of the Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after the lapse of a year, the period for which reduction in rank of the petitioner was ordered as a punishment, the service appeal had become infructuous. AA./N‑345/S Leave granted.