| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1667 2021 SLD 1667 2021 SCMR 1367 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2021, decided on 8th June, 2021, Date of hearing: 8th June, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No. 2436 of 2019)
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Khawaja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Additional P.G. and Mirza Muzafar Baig, Chief Officer, M.C. Pind Dadan Khan for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2021, decided on 8th June, 2021, Date of hearing: 8th June, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No. 2436 of 2019)
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Khawaja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Additional P.G. and Mirza Muzafar Baig, Chief Officer, M.C. Pind Dadan Khan for
Respondents.
TASAWAR HUSSAIN
VS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT JHELUM AND OTHERS
Law: Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006
Section: 4(1)(b)(v),4(1)(b)(vi),10(6),13,13(5)(ii )
(a) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 4(1)(b)(v) 4(1)(b)(vi)---Willful absence from duty---Penalty of dismissal from service converted to removal from service remained absent from duty for a long period of 23 months without taking leave---Only defence put by him was that a fake criminal case was registered against him, therefore, due to fear of illegal persecution he absconded from the country---However, nothing had estopped the appellant to at least inform his department but he neither applied for leave nor informed his office---During his absence, the inquiry proceedings started against him and inquiry officer also issued publication qua absence of the appellant in newspaper and after fulfilling all requirements of inquiry proceedings recommended that the penalty of removal from service---Competent authority (disagreeing with the inquiry officer) instead imposed major penalty of dismissal from service---Enhancement of the penalty of removal from service into dismissal from service was not sustainable in the eyes of law and coupled with appellants length of service and the fact that he had already suffered hardship, it was appropriate to modify the penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service---Appeal was partly allowed with the said modification of punishment. (b) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 4(1)(b) 5(1)(a)---Wilful absence from duty---Major penalty---Regular inquiry---Not required---Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry. National Bank of Pakistan v. Zahoor Ahmed 2021 SCMR 144 ref. (c) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 10(6) 13---Inquiry officer, recommendations of---Scope---Competent authority was not under obligation to act according to the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer, rather it could inflict penalty as it deemed appropriate according to the facts and circumstances surfacing on the record. (d) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 4(1)(b)(v) 4(1)(b)(vi)---Major…
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