MUHAMMAD SHAHID KHAN NIAZI vs UNITED BANK Ltd. through President and 2 others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking the review of an earlier judgment dated 27-7-2000, based on a subsequent case holding that a regular inquiry is mandatory in charges of misconduct. The core legal question is whether the judgment under review contained any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in review jurisdiction, particularly concerning the necessity of a regular inquiry for the specific charge of failing to join duty upon transfer. The Court held that the judgment under review had already addressed this aspect, determining that no regular inquiry was necessary given the nature of the charge, and further noted that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved. The key principle laid down is that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to seek a rehearing of a case or re-argue points already considered and adjudicated upon, unless a distinct mistake apparent on the face of the record is pointed out.
- Can review jurisdiction be invoked for a rehearing of a case?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory for every charge of misconduct regardless of the nature of the charge?
- What constitutes a mistake apparent on the face of the record in review proceedings?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Review of judgment dated 27-7-2000 is sought on the ground that it has been held in the case of Messrs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Tahir Khan and others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 591) that in a case of charge of misconduct regular inquiry was mandatory.
2. This aspect of the case has been dealt with in the judgment under review and it has been held that keeping in view the nature of the charge against the petitioner i.e, that he did not join the duty at Quetta in spite of his transfer order passed by the competent Authority, no regular inquiry was necessary. Besides it was also held that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved in this case.
3. The petitioner wants rehearing of the case which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. No mistake apparent on the face of record has been pointed out in the judgment under review.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed.