Summary: The petitioner challenged an office order issued by HESCO, which imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the order was based on malafide intentions and lacked legal justification. The petitioner claimed that he replied to a show cause notice but was penalized without a proper inquiry. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It discussed the nature of HESCO as a state enterprise and whether it can be considered a "person" under Article 199 for judicial review. The court determined that HESCO can be regarded as a "person" for the purpose of judicial review. The court examined the merits of the case and found that the petitioner had been charged with poor performance, which did not necessarily fall within the category of misconduct as defined in the relevant rules. The court noted that the punishment of compulsory retirement without a proper inquiry was harsh, especially considering that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to re-calculate the petitioner's pension benefits and other entitlements as per the law. The court ordered the payment of these benefits to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 147, 148 & 149---Abduction with murder, rioting, rioting armed with deadlyweapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Delay ofabout twenty five hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Prosecution case was that the accusedpersons armed with weapons forcibly alighted the son of complainant in a vehicle andtook/abducted him and so far the whereabouts of his son were not known---First InformationReport was lodged after unexplained delay of twenty five hours---Fard-e-bayan showed thatthe alleged incident took place on 15th March 2017 at about 4.30 p.m., but the complainantkept silent on the said date by not bringing the law into motion---On the following day atabout 5.30 p.m., complainant approached the Tehsildar and lodged the FIR---Delay inlodging the FIR was not justifiably explained which showed the unnatural conduct of thecomplainant as his son was abducted by number of accused persons and his life was also indanger but he did not lodge the FIR promptly---Non-reporting the incident immediately tothe law enforcing agencies had rendered the entire case of prosecution as doubtful and itappeared that the complainant nominated a number of accused persons in the crime afterconsultation and deliberation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed toprove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, incircumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 147, 148 & 149---Abduction with murder, rioting, rioting armed with deadlyweapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Contradictions and dishonest improvements made by complainant---Scope---Prosecutioncase was that the accused persons armed with weapons forcibly alighted the son ofcomplainant in a vehicle and took/abducted him along with themselves and so far thewhereabouts of his son were not known---Contents of fard-e-bayan were silent with regard tosource of information of the incident received by complainant but in his court statement, hementioned that a shopkeeper informed him that 10/11 persons in two vehicles came overthere and after torturing abducted his son---Court statement of complainant did not suggestthe name of shopkeeper, who informed him about the incident and even the said shopkeeper had simply told him that 10/11 persons abducted his son without disclosing the names ofculprits---Complainant had not witnessed the crime directly and even the sole eye-witness ofthe occurrence also did not disclose the names of culprits then as to how the complainantnominated the accused persons---Both the accused and the complainant party were known toeach other prior to incident and accordingly the complainant nominated the accused personsin his fard-e-bayan but he did not identify them in the court---Statement of complainant wascontradicted by the shopkeeper, who stated that about two months ago he was present in hisshop when a boy came to his shop and stated that few people had abducted son ofcomplainant and thereafter the said child went to the house of complainant and informed himabout the incident---Shopkeeper made his ignorance with regard to the names of accusedpersons--- Statement of shopkeeper fully negated the statement of complainant, who hadclaimed that he was informed about the incident by the shopkeeper---Source of informationabout the names of the culprits had not been proved---Alleged abductee contradicted thestatements of remaining witnesses---Prosecution thus had failed to prove its case against theaccused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 147, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Abduction withmurder, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appeal againstacquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding of material evidence---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused persons armed with weapons forcibly alighted the sonof complainant in a vehicle and took/ abducted him along with themselves and so far thewhereabouts of his son were not known---Record showed that the alleged abductee narratedthe whole story with regard to his abduction by the nominated accused persons and it hadspecifically been stated by him that after three days of incident the nominated accusedpersons handed him over to three witnesses---None of the said three witnesses wereassociated in the investigation or produced in the Trial Court to affirm the statement ofabductee---Alleged abductee stated that the accused persons had also filmed his naked video,however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he himself did not watch the said videorather he heard about the same and said video was seen by three witnesses---No explanationon the part of prosecution was available as to why the evidence of those witnesses waswithheld, therefore, a presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, couldfairly be drawn that had the said witnesses been examined in the court their evidence wouldhave been un-favourable to the prosecution---Prosecution thus had failed to prove its caseagainst the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 147, 148 & 149---Abduction with murder, rioting, rioting armed with deadlyweapon, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictory statement of abductee---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused personsarmed with weapons forcibly alighted the son of complainant in a vehicle and took/ abductedhim along with themselves and so far the whereabouts of his son were not known---Abductee, in the Court statement, implicated the accused in the commission of crime whilein his confessional statement, he negated the whole case of prosecution that no incident of abduction took place rather the accused came at the place of incident to commit his murder---Furthermore, the alleged abdcutee was not recovered by the law enforcing agency rather afterthree days of his disappearance he came on picture and after his revelation he recorded hisconfessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate wherein he negated the wholeprosecution case and exonerated all the accused persons---Prosecution thus had failed toprove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, incircumstances.(e) Appeal against acquittal-------Double presumption of innocence---Interference--- Scope--- Accused after acquittalearned the double presumption of innocence---Acquittal orders were not interfered with, untiland unless it was proved on record that the same was perverse, contrary to record, fancifuland not sustainable.

Summary: Summary pending