| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 467 2017 SLD 467 2017 SCMR 356 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 328-L of 2009 and C.M.A. No. 06-L of 2011, decided on 29th November, 2016. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2016.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE
A.D. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Fayyaz Ahmed Sherazi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.1 - 3.
Civil Appeal No. 328-L of 2009 and C.M.A. No. 06-L of 2011, decided on 29th November, 2016. Date of hearing: 29th November, 2016.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE
A.D. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Fayyaz Ahmed Sherazi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.1 - 3.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM AKHTAR
VS
MANAGING DIRECTOR WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY LDA, LAHORE AND OTHERS --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Civil service--- ----Inefficiency---Major penalty---Dispensation of regular enquiry---Legality---Fact-finding enquiry did not accuse the appellant personally for committing misappropriation---Allegation against all three accused persons was of inefficiency and misconduct for failing to abide by the departmental rules on storage of scrap stock---Major penalty of reduction in pay to one lower stage in time scale had been imposed on the appellant without an opportunity to demonstrate that the responsibility for the alleged inefficiency was shared and he should not be singled out---Enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service attributed malice and concealment of pilferage to the appellant, which were altogether new charges regarding which a regular inquiry was necessary and could not be dispensed with---Failure by the appellant to object against the dispensation of regular enquiry could not bestow legality/validity upon an administrative action that was deficient in meeting the legal standards of fairness and propriety in disciplinary proceedings---Appellant was apparently punished for misappropriating property of department but without charging him with the same or confronting him with the adverse material sustaining the allegation---Supreme Court observed that it would be lawful, appropriate and fair that a regular enquiry was conducted to the extent of responsibility of the appellant for his alleged misconduct, and if culpable, the lawful penalty that may be imposed on him---Supreme Court set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and remanded his case to the department for holding regular enquiry after giving him full opportunity of representation in accordance with law. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- In September 1999, the appellant was serving as SDO Gulberg (O&M) WASA. Certain vent shafts were damaged by the contractor during construction of service roads and had to be removed. This was done on the instructions of the appellant by shifting six vent shafts to the T Block tube well. The shifting was done by officers subordinate to the appellant in the official Suzuki pickup provided to…
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