Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1203 of 1984, decided on 23rd June, 1985.
(From the Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 22‑10‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 4645 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Misconduct‑‑Misreading of evidence‑‑Leave granted inter alia to examine whether facts found in inquiry do not constitute such misconduct as would be punishable with penalty imposed on respondent as also question whether impugned orders do not suffer from misreading of evidence.
A. Q. M. Sharif‑ul‑Islam, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 22nd October, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional writ petition filed by the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited (the petitioner herein) arising out of a disciplinary action against Muhammad Rafiq respondent, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had taken strong disciplinary action against the respondent on a finding that he was guilty of misconduct. The matter was taken up by the Labour Court which interpreted the Inquiry Report against the petitioner as one of exoneration and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The petitioner having failed up to the High Court has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court when dealing with the Inquiry Report observed as follows:
"In other words, absolving the petitioner from the charge of dishonesty the Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of an attempt of dishonesty."
4. The accusation against the respondent was that he had pocketed the amount realized from sale of tickets without issuing the proper tickets to the passengers of an omnibus, whereas he was serving as a conductor.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine whether the facts found in the Inquiry Report, which have not been disturbed do not constitute such misconduct a would be punishable with the penalty imposed on the respondent as also, the question whether the impugned orders do not suffer from misreading of evidence.
6. Order accordingly.
7. The orders impugned before the High Court are suspended meanwhile.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer