Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 769 2016 SLD 769 2016 PLC 272 2016 PLJ 134
Sindh High Court
C.P.No. D-1595 of 2006, decided on 2nd November, 2015. Date of hearing: 21st September, 2015.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JJ
Salah-ud-Din Ahmed for Petitioner. Jawed Asghar Awan for
Respondent No. 1.

ZAEEM AZIZ QURESHI

VS

PKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Chairman and another

Law: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)

Section: 2,3,5,8

(a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)--- ----Ss. 2, 3, 5 & 8---Petitioner being Manager (Marketing) in the Corporation was charged for financial irregularities---Compulsory retirement--- Enhancement of penalty--- Reasons--- Competent authority---Compulsory retirement order not signed by the competent authority---Effect---Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner-employee and he was compulsory retired on the allegations of financial irregularities---Contention of petitioner-employee was that compulsory retirement order was not passed by the competent authority---Validity---Department was not bound to impose the penalty as recommended by the Inquiry Officer but in case of any deviation or decision to impose any penalty other than recommended, Department was bound to inform the employee in the show cause notice with the reasons of such deviation---Maximum punishment could be inflicted by the authority provided under the law which could not be said to be illegal---Competent authority could pass such order on the report and recommendation of inquiry officer as it might deem proper---Competent authority was not bound to follow the report of inquiry officer---Compulsory retirement order could not be defended on the ground that Chairman/CEO (Competent authority) of the corporation was present in the meeting and there was no need to sign the same by him---Serious allegations were levelled and proved in the inquiry and exact figure of loss had been mentioned in the show cause notice---Inquiry report could not be wiped out or wrecked due to the reason alone that retirement order was not signed by the competent authority---Department should be afforded an opportunity to make another study of the case and pass appropriate order---Impugned order was set aside, however, same would not preclude and impede the authority from passing an appropriate order afresh after consideration of inquiry report---Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt.Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 and Lal Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1995 SCMR 1758 ref. Mehboob Ahmed Soomro v.…
🔒
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