Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 247 2014 SLD 247 2014 PLC 873
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-3526 of 2011 and D-246 of 2012, decided on 30th April, 2014.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JJ
Moiz Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 3526 of 2011). Syed Shoa-un-Nabi for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 246 of 2012). Syed Daanish Ghazi, Rizwan Saeed and Sikandar Khan for
Respondent No. 1.

Syed ALI IRTEZA RIZVI

VS

PAKISTAN REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman/Secretary and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Pakistan Insurance Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1959--- ----Reglns. 29 & 30---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Allegation of misconduct against employee---Fresh inquiry, holding of---Scope---Proper opportunity of hearing and right of defence---Allegation against petitioners, who were General Secretary and President of Pakistan Reinsurance Corporation Employees Union respectively, was that they forcibly entered into room of Corporation Secretary and used foul and abusive language for acceptance of demands of workers---Petitioners claimed that they were exonerated in the first inquiry, however record of same was allegedly lost due to a fire at the office of respondent-corporation---After a second inquiry petitioners were found guilty of misconduct and were punished by placing them four stages lower in time scale---Plea of petitioners was that they were exonerated in the first inquiry report; that appointment letter whereby Inquiry Officer was appointed, was not provided to them to know as to who was going to conduct the inquiry; that Inquiry Officer who found them guilty was biased; that an Inquiry Officer was changed/replaced due to protest lodged by the petitioners, however the same person appeared as a witness in the inquiry against them, and that they had been victimized on account of their trade union activities---Validity---Proper opportunity was not given to the petitioners---During second inquiry Chairman of the Corporation and security guard were not called by Inquiry Officer---Present case was a fit case for holding of a fresh inquiry---Impugned office order, whereby petitioners were awarded punishment, was set-aside in circumstances with directions that fresh inquiry should be conducted against petitioners; that management of the respondent-corporation should appoint a senior officer as Inquiry Officer to hold the inquiry; that ample opportunity of hearing and right of defence should be given to the petitioners in the inquiry proceedings, and that Inquiry Officer should record statement of all witnesses with right of cross-examination to the other side---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.…
🔒
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