Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 909 2000 SLD 909 2000 SCMR 1117 2000 SLD 1321 2000 SCMR 1117
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1546-L of 1999, decision dated: 26-11-1999.
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ

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

AKHTAR HUSSAIN

VS

COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and another

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 212(3)---Dismissal from service---Grant of leave---Scope-.-Civil servant at the time of appointment suppressed the fact that he was already a dismissed civil servant---Grant of leave was discretionary with Supreme Court and leave under Art. 212 of the Constitution was to be granted only in cases where question of law of public importance arose---Case of civil servant was one of individual grievance and no question of law of public importance arose in the case---Conduct of civil servant in suppressing a material fact at the time of seeking fresh employment in Government disentitled him to seek discretionary relief from the Court---Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Amjad v. Chief Engineer, WAPDA and others 1998 PSC 337 distinguished. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1999, JUDGMENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12-8-1999, whereby the service appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was-appointed as Revenue Patwari on 8-3-1990 by A.D.C. (G)/ Collector City, Lahore, on the direction of the Revenue Minister, Punjab. He was later dismissed from service on 20-5-1991 on the ground that he was a dismissed employee of Lahore Development Authority (LDA). The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against his dismissal from service and as the said appeal was not decided by the department within 90 days, he, preferred an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal which was dismissed as follows:-- 8. Main contention of the appellant was that the services of the appellant could not have been dismissed. without observing the procedure as laid down-under E&D Rules. It was further contended that nobody can be condemned unheard. Number of rulings were referred to by the learned counsel in support of his contention some of which are reported as 1994 SCMR 2232, PLD 1990 SC 666 and 1997 PLC (C.S.) 356. 9. On the other hand, the learned D.A. pointed out that the appellant was dismissed from…
🔒
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