Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1771 1985 SLD 1771 1985 PLC 327
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No. 329/336 of 1983, decided on 27th March, 1984.
S. ABDUL, JABBAR KHANCHAIRMAN, ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY AND FAIZ KARIM, MEMBERS

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL

VS

COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and another

Law:

Section:

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-- ---R.6--Dismissal from service--Patwari having lost official revenue records--No evidence of its being stolen or being lost in some manners beyond his control--No report of missing valuable records lodged with police--Charges of irresponsibility, inefficiency and misconduct fully justified in dismissal order--Tribunal found no reason to interfere. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Warraich for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. JUDGMENT FAIZ KARIM, (MEMBER).-- Appellant Muhammad Tufail, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded respondents as mentioned above. 2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the dismissal order, dated 8-5-1983 passed by respondent No.1, upholding order, dated 14-3-1983 of respondent No.2 be set aside with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Patwari in Halqa Naurangabad, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. After the inquiry proceedings he received the dismissal order from the A.C./Collector, Shakargarh (respondent No.2). The appellant filed the appeal with respondent No. 1 which was rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. The grounds for the appeal are that the original order of dismissal, dated 14-3-1983 passed by respondent No.2 was sketchy and non-speaking order. The appellant further added that the enquiry was not conducted by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector himself and simply passed the order on the report of the Enquiry Officer and that too without hearing the appellant in person. The finding of the misconduct against the appellant was that he had lost Basta containing official revenue record. 5.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the relevant record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds as mentioned in para. 4 above. The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492