Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 482 of 1980, decided on 10th February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal, Lahore, dated 3‑2‑1980, in S. A. O. 406/79).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑‑ Art. 212 (3)‑Leave to appeal‑Point raised before Supreme Court not argued before Punjab Administrative Tribunal‑Such point, held, cannot be allowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court‑ Leave to appeal declined.

Muhammad Yousaf Asim, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 10th February, 1981.

‑The petitioner who was a Research Assistant in the Building Research Station, University New Campus, Lahore, proceeded on three days' leave on 15‑12‑1978. He left the Headquarter and reached Karachi on 18‑12‑1978, from where he applied for 25 days leave. This leave was not allowed and he was telegraphically informed on 24‑12‑1978, to resume duty at once. This was followed by a formal letter dated 29‑1‑1979. As the petitioner did not resume duty, he was issued a show‑cause notice on 29‑1‑1979 to explain why major penalty may not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a reply but as that was not found satisfactory, he was removed from service on 23‑6‑1979.

2. The petitioner filed a service appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal on 3‑2‑1980.

3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for leave to appeal to this Court.

4. It was argued .by the learned counsel that the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Government. Whereas the impugned order in this case has been passed by the Secretary of the Department and was, therefore, without lawful authority. The same was the position, according to the learned counsel of the show‑cause notice issued to his client. These points were not argued before the Punjab Administrative Tribunal as the are conspicuous by their omission from the impugned order. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel really had no answer except that in the memorandum of appeal some reference of this nature had been mad by him. Be that as it may, as the points were not argued before the Tribunal, we are not prepared to allow the petitioner to raise them for the first time before us particularly when he has not placed an iota of material on the present record about the soundness of his proposition. It was next argued that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing. This point also does not seem to have been argued before the Tribunal and when w asked the learned counsel, whether his client had really asked for an personal hearing, he had no answer. The plea raised, therefore, is hereby repelled.

5. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed hereby.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.