| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 293 2021 SLD 293 2021 PLJ 13 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No. 4683 of 2018, heard on 11.5.2020, Dates of hearing: 11.5.2020. (Against the judgment Dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 64(R)CS/2017)
GULZAR AHMED, C.J. AND QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JJ.
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General and Arshad Ali Siddiqui, S.O. Ministry of Law for Petitioner. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.
C.P. No. 4683 of 2018, heard on 11.5.2020, Dates of hearing: 11.5.2020. (Against the judgment Dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 64(R)CS/2017)
GULZAR AHMED, C.J. AND QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JJ.
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General and Arshad Ali Siddiqui, S.O. Ministry of Law for Petitioner. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
VS
MAMOON AHMED MALIK--RESPONDENT
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212(3)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 212(3)--Employment as Assistant--Absence from duty during probation any period--Termination of service--Departmental appeal--Non conducting of regular inquiry--Reinstated in service--Challenge to--Departmental appeal is addressed directly to Secretary Law and not through proper channel--Courier receipt attached with memo of appeal seems to be fake, for that, as per letter dated 29.03.2016 of Manager Operation, PIA said receipt has no nexus whatsoever with sending of departmental appeal-- Respondent has conducted himself in a manner, which amounts to deception and he could have been proceeded against by Supreme Court on that account--Respondent remained absent is not disputed rather an admitted fact--Respondent was employed as a probationer”Supreme Court had also looked at office order of termination of service of respondent, which shows that it is a case of termination simpliciter, with no allegation whatsoever mentioned therein--Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the Tribunal) in impugned , has though found respondent to have remained absent from duty, but merely on point that his absence period has been treated as an EOL and further, no regular enquiry was conducted, set aside office order dated 02.04.2012 and respondent was directed to be reinstated in service--Impugned of Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity and is not sustainable in law--same is liable to be set aside--Appeal was allowed. [Pp. 14 15] A, B, C D Order Gulzar Ahmed, C.J.--The respondent was employed as an Assistant (BPS-14) in the Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan on probation. During his probationary period, he remained absent from duty from 05.09.2011 to 02.04.2012, pursuant thereto, his service was terminated vide Office Order dated 02.04.2012. It is claimed by the respondent that against this order of termination, he filed a departmental appeal dated 13.04.2012, which he dispatched through courier service, receipt whereof is attached a Pages-35/36 of the record. Description: BDescription: A2. In the first place, we note that the very departmental appeal is addressed by the respondent directly to the Secretary…
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