Citation Name: 2008 PLC(CS) 211 N.-W.F.P. Service TribunalBookmark this Case HAKIMULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF N

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2008 PLC(CS) 211 N.-W.F.P. Service TribunalBookmark this Case HAKIMULLAH VS GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary Dismissal from Service--TERM , N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000--10 , N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000--3 , N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000--5 , N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act 1974--4 , Ss. 3, 5 & 10---North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4---Dismissal from service---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Appellant, who was serving as District Officer, was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing on 3 main allegations; that furniture purchased was substandard; that material was not complete according to the list within the given time; and no action was taken against the firm which supplied the substandard furniture--Held, in the presence of Technical Expert, responsibility of appellant about the items in question was considerably decreased---Appellant had taken all punitive measures possible within his means against the defaulting supplier firms---No charge-sheet accompanied by the statement of allegations had been framed nor communicated to appellant, whereas framing of charges was not only a formality, but amandatory requirement of law---Major penalty of dismissal from service had been imposed on appellant without instituting a regular inquiry within the terms of relevant law---Appellant had been straightaway issued a show-cause notice---Appellant had along spotless service of 24 years and the charges levelled against him had not been proved---Appeal against order of dismissal from service of appellant was accepted, impugned order was set aside---Department was directed to reinstate appellant from date of his dismissal from services with all back-benefits within a period of one month. Citation Name: 2017 CLCN 108 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case AMEER HUSSAIN SHAH VS KAZIM HUSSAIN SHAH S. 11--- Res judicata, principle of--- Applicability--- Earlier suit between the parties had been dismissed up to the Supreme Court---Plaintiffs were not entitled to agitate the same controversy in second round of litigation---Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 297 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALAM VS Malik ZAHOOR AHMED Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 24, 35a & 115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Mala fide---Delaying tactics---Exemplary cost, imposing of---Petitioner/defendant was aggrieved of rejecting of his application by Lower appellate Court for transfer of case from one Court to another---Validity---Since date of service of summons on 22-10-2012, by Trial Court, petitioner/defendant had been lingering on the civil suit of respondent/plaintiff for eleven years on one baseless pretext or the other---Suit was at trial stage and it would have to travel across appellate and revisional stages---No litigant could be allowed to make applications for adjournments, transfer of civil suit from one Court to another and frequent substitution of counsel---High Court showed serious concern that if such practice was not curbed by applying strict measures, the prevailing judicial system would not dispense justice, which was indeed it's constitutional and legal duty---High Court declined to interfere in the matter and imposed exemplary costs upon petitioner/defendant---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 276 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ALI AKBAR VS Mst. NASEEM S. 5, Sched---Maintenance allowance of minors---Father, responsibility of---Scope---Definition of maintenance, which includes food, clothing, and lodging, is neither conclusive nor exhaustive and has a broader connotation and should be given an extended meaning---It is not a benefit but is an undeniable legal obligation of a father---Father cannot be absolved of his prime duty to maintain children, irrespective of the fact that the minors are living with their mother (respondent).

Citation Name: 2008 PLC(CS) 211 N.-W.F.P. Service TribunalBookmark this Case HAKIMULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF N — part 1

Case information

Judgment text as reported