Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1991 SCMR 368

FAIZ AHMAD vs DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, LAHORE And Other

Petitioner: FAIZ AHMAD VS Respondent: DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, LAHORE And Other

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 1990-02-18

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ajmal Mian, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title: FAIZ AHMAD vs DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, LAHORE And Other Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 26-R of 1990 Appeal No. 301(R) of 1989 Date of Judgment:1990-02-18 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 368 Result: Leave refused

Judgment ORDER AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9-10-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.301(R)/89 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed against the order dated 1-9-1985 of his removal from service of Postal Department. 2. The petitioner was working as a postman. He received certain amounts in respect of money orders, the payment of which he held up for some time. Upon receipt of complaints from the payees under the money orders, an enquiry was held against the petitioner in consequence whereof he was removed from service by the above order. The petitioner filed the above appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave. 3. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that it was only to examine the question, whether any irregularity in holding the enquiry was committed and not to examine the question, whether the charge was proved. According to him this is a question of public importance which needs examination by this Court. 4. Mr. Paracha's above contention is based on wrong premises as the I Tribunal has perused the material on record and concurred with the finding of the enquiry on the question of misconduct. The factum that the petitioner had withheld the various amounts referred to in the charge sheet for some time stood proved. The petition has no merits. Leave is accordingly refused.

Related Legal Research & Directories