Summary: Against termination from service---no interference by the court---dismissed----This case involved an appeal under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, challenging the termination of the appellant's services as a Judicial Officer.The essential facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was appointed as an Additional District & Sessions Judge in April 2004, after successfully passing a competitive examination. His appointment was on a probationary basis for two years. After training, he was initially posted in Rajanpur for nine months and then transferred to Mian Channu.During his posting in Mian Channu, he was appointed as a Returning Officer for conducting the Local Government elections in August 2005. However, serious allegations of misconduct, including allegations of sexual harassment against a female worker of a contesting candidate, were raised against him. These allegations led to the termination of the appellant's services under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974.The appellant contended that the termination amounted to a stigma on his record and insisted that a detailed inquiry should have been conducted. The Administration Committee had also upheld the termination while rejecting the appellant's representation. After hearing both sides and reviewing the case's records, the Tribunal found that multiple applications had been made, alleging mismanagement, corruption, misconduct, and improper relationships during the election process. Various authorities, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Inspection Judge, had directed an inquiry into these allegations, and the District & Sessions Judge had submitted a report. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the report and related documents, concluded that the termination was in accordance with the law. The Reporting Officer had found that the appellant had failed to meet the expectations of a good Judicial Officer, and allegations of sexual harassment were not adequately explained. The Tribunal held that the appellant's conduct was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, and the material against him was sufficient to render him ineligible for holding the position. Therefore, the appellant's services were correctly terminated, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The case pertains to a dispute over land allotment under the Grow More Food Scheme in Chak No. 67-RB, District Faisalabad. The original allotment was canceled, and an alternate piece of land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4, Muhammad Younas. However, this second allotment was also canceled, and the land was shown as "Baqaya Sarkar" in the revenue record. Subsequently, the land was put up for open auction, and the petitioner, Muhammad Younas, became the highest bidder. The auction was confirmed in his favor. Respondent No. 4 (Muhammad Younas) challenged the auction confirmation through an appeal and revision petition, alleging that he had fulfilled the condition of depositing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 as directed by the authorities. The case involved discussions on whether the land should have been auctioned and the legality of the petitioner's claim as the successful bidder.The judge observed that the order passed by the Executive District Officer (R) on 18.01.2011, setting aside the confirmation of auction, was not challenged by the petitioner before any higher forum. Therefore, any action taken by the Additional Commissioner (R) subsequent to that order lacked legal validity. The judge concluded that the petitioner's claim as a successful bidder was not supported by the law, and the action of putting the land to auction without following proper procedures was deemed illegal. As a result, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner was given the option to seek a refund of the amount deposited at different times.

Summary: Preamble, Ss.2(c), 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)---S. 561-A Cr.P.C ---Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance (XXIV of 1978), Preamble & S. 33---Illegal dispossession---Complaint---Quashing of proceedings.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.