Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TALIB HUSSAIN VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISIONHonorable Justice S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN
1984 P L C (C
1984 P L C (C. S.) 653
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members
Syed TALIB HUSSAIN
Versus
COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION
Case No. 672 of 1981, decided on 25th May, 1982.
Civil service
‑ Reinstatement‑Civil servant, Kanungo, failing to produce proof to show that be was re‑instated in service after acquittal by High Court in a case and his name nowhere found either in Central Record Office or with Sadar Kanungo Office where he was allegedly posted as Kanungo after coming from India after inde‑ pendence‑Re‑instatement in service declined.
Appellant in person.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Syed Talib Hussain has filed this appeal through an application in which he has submitted that he was a Kanungo who came from India after Partition and was serving as such uptil the year 1955. It has been further stated by him that he was involved in a case but was acquitted on l0th November, 1955 by the order of the High Court. After his acquittal he fell victim to a Railway accident and remained under treatment for full l0 years and again report ed for duty in 1965. According to the appellant he has been refused employment since then and is wandering without any job.
2. This Tribunal heard the appellant in person and find that the appellant failed to produce any proof to show that he _ was re‑instated in service and thus his appeal was dismissed as being without any merits. This case was brought to Lahore from Bahawalpur in order to make probe into the matter and to find out as to the status of the appellant and his earlier antecedents. Despite our best efforts his name is nowhere either on the Central Record Office Lahore or with the Sadar Kanungo Office at Sahiwal. Despite our directions to the appellant that he should produce some proof of his service he has failed to do so and has not even appeared before us to pursue this case.
3. 1n view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the Commissioner's order, dated 11th June, 1979 and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.
M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.