Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1392 2008 SLD 1392 2008 PLC 1205
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No.319(L)(C.S.) of 2000, decided on 10th April, 2004, Date of hearing: 10th April, 2004.
MOAZZAM HAYAT AND, JEHAN ZAIB BURKI, MEMBERS
Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant. Aurangzeb Mirza for
Respondents

ITRUT ALI SHEIKH

VS

GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE (WATER), WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and another

Law: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978

Section: 2(i)(ii)(iv),(vii),4(1)(b)(iv),5,6,7

Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Section: 4

Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978---   ----Rr. 2(i)(ii)(iv) (vii), 4(1)(b)(iv), 5, 6 7---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Dismissal from service---Inquiry proceedings---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Appellant was dismissed from service after charge-sheeting him for inefficiency and misconduct---Inquiry Committee while conducting inquiry proceedings, had committed an irregularity of very serious nature as it did not record statements of two witnesses in detail---Said witnesses were required to state in their own words what they knew about the case, but said two witnesses had not made any statement at all---Testimony of said witnesses could not be used against appellant as the material irregularity had caused serious prejudice to the appellant and that was a sufficient ground for remanding case for fresh inquiry---Statement of defence witness produced by appellant was not recorded---Inquiry Committee simply after hearing statement of defence witness declared the same to be not relevant---Correct procedure was not adopted by Inquiry Committee as it was the duty of Inquiry Committee to first record statement of defence witness and then make an observation in its report as to whether or not such statement was relevant---Inquiry Committee did not record examination¬-in-chief of appellant---Committee was to record examination-in-chief of appellant and then allow an opportunity to Departmental representative to cross-examine him---Main witness produced many documents, but neither copies of said documents were supplied to appellant nor he was given opportunity to inspect relevant record---Case against appellant was of discrimination---Inquiry report had revealed that Inquiry Committee was influenced by report of fact-finding Committee---Being an independent and impartial Committee, it should not have been influenced by the report of fact-finding Committee---Conclusions drawn by Inquiry Committee were merely conjectural---Inquiry report of Inquiry Committee was liable to be set aside---Some appeals for the same transaction were accepted and fresh inquiry was ordered by Service…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492