Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAQIR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
1988 S C M R 1677
1988 S C M R 1677
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Ch. FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.667 of 1981, decided on 6th July, 1988.
(From the order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11‑12‑1980 in Appeal No.384/541 of 1979).
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑
‑‑‑R.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Order of Service Tribunal rejecting petitioner's appeal, impugned‑‑Pleas that petitioner was not given reasonable and proper opportunity to plead his case and that he was entitled to a second show‑cause notice after the preliminaries were complied with, not entertained‑‑Petitioner was not condemned unheard and impugned order had in no way resulted in prejudice to his case before Tribunal‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988.
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Ch. Faqir Muhammad, ex‑Executive Engineer, son of Ch. Amiruddin, resident of 218‑C, Gulberg Faisalabad through Jamil Ahmad his special attorney seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11‑12‑1980. The petitioner had filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act against the order of dismissal dated 21‑6‑1979. His appeal was dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. His main emphasis was that the petitioner had not been given reasonable and proper opportunity to plead his case. It was further submitted that the petitioner was entitled to a second show‑cause notice after the preliminaries had been complied with.
We have considered this aspect in the light of the submission of the learned counsel as well as the finding of the Tribunal.
We don't think the petitioner was condemned unheard. The impugned order in no way resulted in prejudice to the petitioner's case before the Tribunal. No ground for leave to appeal.
Dismissed.
M.I. /F‑65/S Petition dismissed.