| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2253 2019 SLD 2253 2019 PLJ 84 |
Islamabad High Court
I.C.A. No. 523 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 27.09.2017.
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Nasir Ahmed Saghir, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Ahsan Shahzad, Sr. Prosecutor N.A.B.
I.C.A. No. 523 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 27.09.2017.
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Nasir Ahmed Saghir, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Ahsan Shahzad, Sr. Prosecutor N.A.B.
SAQIB FAROOQ
VS
NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ETC.
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 28(c)
Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
Section: 3(2)
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999-- ----Ss. 28(c)--Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--S. 3(2)--Initiation of disciplinary proceedings--Illegal gratification--Charges of misconduct and corruption--Removal from service--Filling of Write petition--Dismissed--Maintainability--Challenge to--Record shows that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against appellant/ petitioner, which proceedings culminated in imposition of a major penalty of removal from service--As per charge sheet, appellant was accused of misconduct and corruption--It is not disputed that a major penalty of removal from service was imposed on appellant after disciplinary proceedings, had been conducted against him--Since remedy of an appeal was available under said conditions (which are statutory in nature), we are of view that instant appeal is barred by proviso to Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and therefore, not maintainable--Appeal was dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE---.--- Through the instant intra Court appeal, the appellant, Saqib Farooq, impugns the order dated 28.10.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, whereby Writ Petition No. 3408/2015 instituted by the appellant was dismissed. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 (National Accountability Bureau) raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant appeal. He submitted that the appellant's appeal was barred under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972; that the applicable law to the proceedings with respect to which the writ petition was filed by the appellant was the National Accountability Bureau Employees Terms and Conditions of Service, 2002, which were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28-C of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999; that Clause-13.02 of the said law provided a remedy of an appeal to the appellant, therefore, the instant appeal was not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the remedy of an appeal was not available to the appellant against an "order" passed against him; that this Court had in a…
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