Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs VS Respondent: DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, MULTAN and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Hamid Ali Mirza, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed Khan Title:SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD
DEPARTMENT, MULTAN and another Case No.: Civil Petition No,1628 of 2002 Date of Judgment:2003-10-06 Reported As: PLD 2004 Supreme Court 55 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Authority was not competent to impose major penalty when the authorized officer did not recommend the same. 3. We do not find substance in the said contention considering that the Authority is competent to differ with the proposed recommendation of authorized officer and could impose major penalty, which in his opinion is considered to be legal in view of the evidence on record upon the delinquent officer. It may be observed that after receiving the report dated 11-4-1989 of the authorized officer in respect of the petitioner the Authority issued notice for personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering relevant documents and defence of the petitioner gave sound reasons for not agreeing with the authorized officer in his order dated 19-9-1993 against which appeal was also preferred before the Director Food which too was rejected. We are of the view that Authority was quite competent in law to differ with regard to the authorized officer in the circumstances of the case as the Authority has given just and sound reasons in his order for disagreeing with the authorized officer after considering the relevant documents and defence of the petitioner. Reference may be made to (i) Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director Food, Punjab and others 1992 SCMR 1864; (ii) Qazi Khalilur Rehman and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others 1994. PLC (C.S.) 713, (iii) Sh. Abdul Waheed v. The Chief Secretary, Punjab 1985 PLC (C.S.) 886. No other plea has been raised. 4. We find that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, therefore, leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.