| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 389 2022 SLD 389 2022 PLC 132 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 985 of 2020, decision dated: 22nd February, 2021. hearing date: 22nd February, 2021. (Against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar passed in Appeal No. 961 of 2018)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Appellants. Khaled Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 985 of 2020, decision dated: 22nd February, 2021. hearing date: 22nd February, 2021. (Against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar passed in Appeal No. 961 of 2018)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Appellants. Khaled Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
SECRETARY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS
VS
NOOR-ULAMIN
Law:
Section:
Civil service--- ----Failure to report to duty on expiry of ex-Pakistan leave---Removal from service---Service Tribunal by way of impugned converted the major penalty of removal from service into a major penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of his absence, and the absence period was treated as unauthorized absence---Tribunal proceeded to modify the penalty on two counts; one that no regular inquiry was conducted and the other that the respondent had 10 years’ service---Legality---Held, that the very fact of respondent-civil servant remaining absent was not a disputed fact and thus there was no occasion for holding a regular inquiry in the matter---Being an employee for 10 years did not give any authority to the respondent on the basis of which he could stay away from his job continuously for years altogether and thus, such ground could not have been pressed for modifying the penalty imposed by the department upon the respondent giving premium to him for his misconduct---More so, looking at the travelling history of the respondent, it showed that almost twelve times the respondent had visited abroad and returned to Pakistan showing that he was involved in some other activities and thus was not interested in continuing his government service---In such circumstances the modification of penalty by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law---Impugned to the extent of modification of penalty was set aside and the appeal to such extent was allowed. National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Zahoor Ahmed Mengal 2021 SCMR 144; Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and another v. Allah Bakhsh 2020 SCMR 1418 and Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary v. Muhammad Arshad and 2 others 2020 SCMR 1962 ref. ORDER: GULZAR AHMED, C.J.--- The respondent was employed as Primary School Teacher (“PST”) in the Education Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He was granted ex-Pakistan leave from 02.12.2012 to 01.12.2014 vide order dated 31.12.2012. As the respondent did not report to duty on expiry of his ex-Pakistan leave, he was issued show-cause notice dated 24.10.2017. As the respondent did not report for duty despite issuance of notice in the…
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