| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 400 2011 SLD 400 2011 SCMR 1504 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1051-K of 2005 arising out of Civil Petition No.571-K of 2003, decision dated: 23rd October, 2008.(Against the judgment dated 10-6-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.221(K)(CS) of 2001)
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent. Nemo for
Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1051-K of 2005 arising out of Civil Petition No.571-K of 2003, decision dated: 23rd October, 2008.(Against the judgment dated 10-6-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.221(K)(CS) of 2001)
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent. Nemo for
Respondent
HABIBULLAH BHUTTO
VS
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another
Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
Section: 6-A,5
Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
Section: 6-A,5
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 24-A
(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--- ----R. 6-A---Disagreement of Authority with findings of Inquiry Officer or Authorized Officer---Effect-Authority, in such case ought to record proper reasons. Chief Director, Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad and another v. Rabat Ali Sherwani 1996 SCMR 248 rel. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--- ---Rr. 5 & 6-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Order of Authorized Officer for holding of fresh inquiry after accepting representation of accused officer against earlier ex parte inquiry--Effect---Earlier ex parte inquiry would stand completely wiped out and only findings recorded in fresh inquiry would be liable to be considered---Authorized Officer or Authority could disagree with findings of Inquiry Officer after giving notice to accused officer and recording reasons therefor, but could not place reliance upon findings on earlier ex parte inquiry, which stood annulled---Illustration. (c) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--- ----Rr. 5 & 6-A---Personal knowledge of Authority about facts of case---Validity---Authority, while exercising quqsi-judicial powers in disciplinary matters, could not import his personal knowledge to the facts of the case---When Authority had any personal knowledge, then it could cause relevant evidence to be produced before Inquiry Officer to enable him to arrive at a proper conclusion instead of making a mockery of whole legal process by allowing enquiry to proceed and waiting to exercise his revisional powers on basis of his personal knowledge irrespective of outcome of inquiry proceedings---Order of Authority imposing penalty would become illegal and tainted with bias, if he failed to communicate facts in his personal knowledge to accused -officer in show-cause notice or to mention in his order, but recorded same in secrecy of his files. Amin-e-Ajam v. Central Board of Revenue and another 2007 SCMR 1581 and Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqi v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 64 rel. JUDGMENT SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Federal…
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