Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 PLC (C.S.) 856

ABDUL RAUF vs LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar, Lahore High

Citation1989 PLC (C.S.) 856
CourtPunjab Service Tribunal
Judge(s)Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Malik Abdul Aziz
ResultAppeal dismissed

' MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).-- Abdur Rauf has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against dismissal order passed by respondent No, 2 dated 6-1-1988. The appellant has impleaded Lahore High Court through Registrar as well as District and Sessions Judge, Sargodha as respondents. Through this appeal he has prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeal be accepted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Ahlmad was charge-sheeted. Civil Judge, Bhalwal as Enquiry Officer proceeded against him and ultimately on 18-7-1987 he was retired compulsorily under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Later on, on 6-1-1988 respondent No, 2 passed yet another order of dismissal from service against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of this case carefully.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on compulsory retirement of the appellant w,e,f, 18-7-1987 he remained no longer a civil servant and therefore, respondent No, 2 was not competent to pass subsequent order of dismissal dated 6-1-1988 against him under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel for the respondents has conceded to the a fore stated position of the matter.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the appellant ceased to be a "civil servant" w,e,f, 18-7-1987.

6. Resultantly we dismiss the instant appeal against the subsequent dismissal order dated 6-1- 1988 as being incompetent.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search