Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS Respondent: CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN ZONE, MULTAN
1987 S C M R 433
1987 S C M R 433
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ
MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑‑Petitioner
Versus
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN ZONE, MULTAN and others Respondents
Civil Petition No. 666 of 1986, decided on 18th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore, dated 26‑3‑1986 passed in Service Appeal No. 85/45 of 1985).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Ss. 4 & 5‑‑Removal from service, challenged‑‑Acceptance of appeal on technical grounds‑‑Directions to proceed afresh, if so desired‑‑Validity of‑‑Service Tribunal accepted petitioner's appeal on technical ground, ordered his re‑instatement, leaving it open to competent authority to proceed afresh against him, if so desired, strictly in accordance with rules‑‑Plea that direction for proceeding afresh in matter was not warranted, repelled‑ Petitioner's appeal having been accepted by Tribunal on technical ground without going into merits of case, legal proposition that Tribunal could not issue such direction, held, untenable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th October, 1986.
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The service appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the order of his removal from service was set aside on the technical ground that the impugned order was not passed by the competent authority. The learned Service Tribunal has ordered the re‑instatement of the petitioner in service leaving it open to the competent authority to proceed afresh against him if so desired strictly in accordance with the rules.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction for proceeding afresh in the matter was not warranted. We do not find any substance in the contention. The petitioner's appeal was accepted on technical ground without going into the merits of the case. The legal proposition that the Tribunal could not issue such direction is untenable.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.I. /4423/S Petition dismissed.