Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1989 SCMR 1224
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 1988
Decision Date: 1988-08-09
Parties: THE DIRECTORGENERAL (FIELD), AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another vs Haji ABDUL REHMAN
This judicial decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 1988-08-09. The matter involves proceedings between THE DIRECTORGENERAL (FIELD), AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another and Haji ABDUL REHMAN, officially reported as 1989 SCMR 1224. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 1989 SCMR 1224
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Saad Saood Jan Title:THE DIRECTORGENERAL (FIELD), AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and
another vs Haji ABDUL REHMAN Case No.: Civil Petition No,1226 of 1983 C Date of Judgment:1988-08-09 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1224 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 31-7-1983. 2. The services of the respondent who was working as an Assistant in the Office of the Director, Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi, were terminated on 11-2-1978 on account of wilful absence from duty. On appeal by him, the Director, however, set aside the order of termination of his services, the period of absence was treated as leave without pay and a warning was given to him. The respondent's services were again terminated on 12-7-1982 on the same charges. He approached the High Court but was directed to seek his remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the case held that the subsequent order was unlawful and void ab initio in that the respondent A could not be vexed for the same charge twice, hence the present petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and we hardly find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.