Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL MALAK KIANI VS Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
1988 S C M R 1969
1988 S C M R 1969
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL MALAK KIANI‑‑Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.178 of 1982, decided on 18th July, 1988.
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30‑11‑1981 in Appeal No.566 of 1980).
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Compulsory retirement from service‑‑Misconduct‑‑Petitioner guilty of tampering with entries in Measurement Books, a basic and important record of works done by contractors for making payments to them‑‑Petitioner, with such conduct, held, was not entitled to any indulgence by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Sh.Abdul Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Abdul Malak Kiani son of Kala Khan, ex‑Overseer/Sub‑Engineer, Peoples Works Programme, resident of House No.376‑S, Fareed Town, Sahiwal, has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30‑11‑1981 whereby his appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner/ Project Director retiring him compulsorily from service was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to successfully assail the observation of the Tribunal which is to the following effect: ‑
"... It is quite obvious that the appellant has removed the entries in the measurement books by an ink‑remover without realising that the measurement is always a basic and very important record of the works so done by the Contractors for making payments to them. Any tampering in such an important record is a heinous allegation and cannot be taken lightly..."
This being the conduct of the petitioner, we don't think he is entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The petition is dismissed.
M.I. /A‑318/S Petition dismissed.