Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: M. KHADIM HUSSAIN KHALID
1988 S C M R 1681
1988 S C M R 1681
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education, Lahore‑‑Petitioner
versus
M.KHADIM HUSSAIN KHALID‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.23 of 1981, decided on 3rd July, 1988.
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4‑11‑1980 in Appeal No.91/969 of 1977).
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Civil service‑ Misconduct‑‑Civil servant punished on charge of manipulation tantamounting to misconduct‑‑Service Tribunal partly allowed his appeal and set aside impugned order‑‑No effective arguments having being advanced and there being no merits in Department's‑ petition for leave to appeal same was dismissed.
Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme' Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Province of Punjab through Secretary Education, Lahore, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4‑11‑1980. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 12‑3‑1977.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition was unable to advance any effective arguments. We called upon him as to what he has to say with regard to the following observation made in the impugned judgment:‑--
"..The Department has accused the appellant of manipulation which is tantamount to misconduct and no action against the appellant could be taken except under the END Rules 1975. Even if it was a case of mistake, the order having been acted upon and the notification having been duly issued with the approval of the Finance Department, could not be rescinded to the disadvantage of the appellant without providing him an opportunity to explain his part of the case. Moreover, the respondent was not entitled to withdraw the same retrospectively."
Learned counsel could not give any satisfactory reply. There being no merit in this petition, it is dismissed.
M.I. /P‑50/S Petition dismissed.