Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SIRAJ VS Respondent: PAKISTAN
1980 P L C (C
1980 P L C (C. S.) 398
[Supreme Court]
Present: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah, JJ
MUHAMMAD SIRAJ
Versus
PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS
Civil Preview Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 46‑D of 1971, decided on 29th January 1980.
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, dated 26‑3‑1978).
Civil services‑--
‑‑‑Removal from service‑Dispute over competence of appointing and removing authority‑Point urged by petitioner and already rejected by Supreme Court in petition for special leave to appeal‑No error, patent on face of record pointed out‑Such point cannot be permitted to be argued all over again.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 29th January 1980.
ORDER
G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑This petition seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 26th March, 1978, by which the leave Petition of the petitioner herein was dismissed.
In the said leave petition, the main ground upon which the petitioner had challenged the order of his removal from service by order dated 21st May, 1969, passed by Director, Malaria Institute of Pakistan, Dacca, (respondent No. 4 in this petition) was that he was not his appointing authority and consequently he could neither initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him nor remove him from service. This contention was examined m depth and was rejected.
The contention now urged by the petitioner is more or less to the same effect. In that he seeks the review of the judgment of this Court on the ground that the President of Pakistan had delegated his power, as appointing and removing authority in respect of Class‑III Civil Servants to which category he belonged to the Director‑General, Health, Pakistan, and consequently the latter could not delegate the said power to respondent No. 4. It would thus be seen that the petitioner seeks to re‑argue the case on the same very point which had been urged by him and rejected by this Court vide its judgment under review, but the same is impermissible. It is not a case in which the petitioner has pointed out any error patent on the face of the record, therefore, he cannot be permitted to argue the case all over again.
This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.