Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 1531 1995 SLD 1531 1995 PLC 969
Service Tribunal (AJ&K)
Service Appeal No. 593 of 1992, decided on 19th February,1995.
RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN CHAIRMAN AND KHAWAJA ABDUL HAMEED, MEMBER

Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANIvsAZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Words and phrases--- ----Words "communication" and "communicate"---Meaning---Communication" means something that communicates information, sent or transmit from one person to another'---"Communicate" means `to impart, to transmit, to make known to succeed in conveying information'. AIR 1970 SC 214 ref, (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 118, 122 & 129(g)---Presumption---Burden of proof---Presumption to be drawn against the party under Art. 129, and application of principle of Arts.118 & 122 of Oanun-e-Shahadat could only be taken into consideration where a party having full knowledge of the case, had avoided giving evidence in his own case. PLD 1986 Azad J&K 108 and PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 76 ref. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976--- ----R. 14(2)---Non-appearance of deponent---Effect---Case of parties before Service Tribunal ordinarily was to be decided upon affidavit as provided under R. 14(2) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976, under which Service Tribunal could allow parties to lead evidence---Party affected by affidavit could be permitted by Service Tribunal to cross-examine deponent with reference to the statements in affidavit---If, opponents did not cross-examine deponent with respect to facts stated in affidavit and had failed to avail of opportunity provided to them under law their failure to do so could also be taken as a fact which proved that contents of the affidavit were correct---Non-appearance of deponent as witness, was neutralized by failure of opponents to confront deponent with reference to contents of affidavit in circumstances. (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Courts and Laws Code Act, 1949--- ---S. 5---Senioritv---Determination---Appellant, Judicial Officer, seeking determination of his seniority over respondents had contended that one Judge of High Court having not been associated in process of determination of seniority of Judicial Officers including appellant, determination of seniority was invalid as in absence of the Judge of High Court, High Court was not complete and determination of seniority by remaining Judges of High Court was not…
🔒
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