Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 697 of 1985, decided on 25th January, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑4‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 30‑D of 1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Railway employee‑‑Accused‑Respondent serving as Charge man in Carriage and Wagons Workshop charged for receiving illegal gratification and issued notice of discharge from service by Works Manager‑‑District Court as well as High Court coming to conclusion that notice of discharge was not issued by appropriate authority i.e. appointing authority which in this case was Superintendent (Mechanical Workshop) and that notice issued by Works Manager was invalid‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether District Court and High Court were justified in taking such view.
Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Muhammad Aslam Ch. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Qamarud Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record with Kh. Muhammad Asif, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986.
This petition by the Government is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 16‑4‑1985 dismissing its 'Civil revision in a service matter.
2. Facts briefly, are that Muhammad Munir respondent was working as a Senior Chargeman in the Carriage and Wagon Workshop. Moghalpura Lahore. He was charged with having received illegal gratification and after the inquiry he was issued notice of discharge (from service) by the Works Manager. The said notice was challenged by the respondent through a civil suit in the civil Court at Lahore, which was dismissed. Muhammad Munir respondent then filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge. The Government thereupon filed a Civil Revision before the High Court which did not succeed.
Hence he present petition by the Government.
3. It is urged by the petitioner's counsel that the only ground on which Muhammad Munir respondent had challenged his notice of discharge was that the Works Manager who had passed the discharge order had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee which (according to the respondent) had not held him guilty of the charge of accepting illegal gratification.
The learned Additional District Judge and the learned High Court, on the other hand, decided the matter on the ground that the notice of discharge of the respondent was not issued by the appointing authority, which in this case was the Superintendent (Mechanical) Workshop, and held the notice as invalid.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the
High Court has decided the matter on wholly extraneous ground which was never taken up by the respondent in his pleadings and that it was not justified in deciding the case on a ground which was not in issue in the trial Court.
Leave is, therefore, granted to consider whether the Additional District Judge and the High Court were justified in taking the view, in the circumstances of this case, that the discharge notice was not valid because it had not been is sued by the relevant authority. Stay already granted shall continue.
M.Y.H Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer