| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1310 2008 SLD 1310 2008 PLC 816 |
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No.160(K)(C.S.) of 2001, decided on 13th December, 2005, Date of hearing: 8th December, 2005.
QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBERS
Muhammad Ismail Khan for Appellant. Abbas Haider Jaffri for
Respondents.
Appeal No.160(K)(C.S.) of 2001, decided on 13th December, 2005, Date of hearing: 8th December, 2005.
QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBERS
Muhammad Ismail Khan for Appellant. Abbas Haider Jaffri for
Respondents.
NIAZ AHMED DAYO
VS
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 2 others
Law: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978
Section: 4
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 4
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978--- ----R. 4---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Removal from service---Appeal---Appellant, who had rendered twenty two years service and had a meritorious record while serving as Senior Engineer, was removed from service after issuing letter of explanation to him by the Chairman WAPDA regarding recommending of P.Os. at high rates, which had caused loss to the Authority---Show-cause notice issued to appellant was replied by him denying all the allegations against him---Record had revealed that before issuing the letter of explanation to appellant, a preliminary enquiry was held by the Authority against the appellant, but appellant was not associated with said enquiry, and was also not given any chance of cross-examination---Despite denial of serious allegations of fact by the appellant, no regular enquiry had been held against him---Even otherwise object of a preliminary enquiry was to collect evidence and material and to determine the truthfulness of the allegations levelled against an employee---Employee could be declared guilty only through a regular enquiry, which was to be held after charge-sheet was issued to him---Authority did not feel the necessity of holding a regular inquiry against appellant; and for imposing penalty on him banked merely on the report of preliminary enquiry---Proceedings conducted by Authority, which resulted into removal of the appellant from service could not be protected---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded with direction to the Authority to reinstate appellant and hold de novo disciplinary proceedings against him on the same allegations/charges within a period of four months---Question of back-benefits would depend upon the result of the enquiry. 1993 SCMR 603; 1993 SCMR 1440; 1996 SCMR 602; PLD 1989 SC 335; PLD 2002 SC 607; PLD 2002 SC 667; PLJ 2000 SC 255; 2001 SCMR 1566; 1984 PLC (C.S.) 641; 1986 PLC (C.S.) 894; PLD 1994 SC 222; 1985 PLC (C.S.) 245 and 2004 SCMR 1662 rel. JUDGMENT RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).--- Vide order, dated 18-1-2001, the appellant who was lastly working as Senior Engineer, WAPDA…
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