Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 116 2023 SLD 116 2023 SCMR 301
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C. P. No. 4294 of 2019, decided on 25th November, 2022. Date of hearing: 25th November, 2022. (Against the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar Dated 01.10.2019, passed in W.P. No. 4666-P of 2018)
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ
Amjad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Law: Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Section: 42

(a) Pakistan Wapda Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978--- ----Rr. 5(iii), 5(iv)---Disciplinary proceedings---Regular inquiry---Scope---No rigid or definitive rule that in each and every case after issuing show cause notice a regular inquiry should be conducted, but if the department aspires to dispense with the regular inquiry due to some compelling circumstances or exigency, then justifiable reasons should be assigned in writing before dispensing with the regular inquiry---No doubt, if a charge is set up or stems from admitted documents, no full-fledged regular inquiry is obligatory, but if the allegations are based on disputed questions of facts, then obviously the employee cannot be denied a right of regular inquiry, specifically where the allegations cannot be resolved without leading evidence and providing a fair opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the witnesses. Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Prime Minister of Pakistan and others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 868; Shakeel Ahmad v. I.G. Punjab Police, Lahore and others 2007 SCMR 192; Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369; Fuad Asadullah Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 SCMR 412 and Chief Postmaster Faisalabad, GPO and another v. Muhammad Fazal 2020 SCMR 1029 ref. (b) Limitation--- ----Law of limitation reduces an effect of extinguishment of a right of a party when significant lapses occur---When no sufficient cause for such lapses, delay or time barred action is shown by the defaulting party, the opposite party is entitled to a right accrued by such lapses---Omission and negligence of not filing the proceedings within the prescribed limitation period creates a right in favour of the opposite party. Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 ref. (c) Limitation--- ----Void order---No relaxation is available in law to approach the court after deep slumber or inordinate delay under the garb of labeling an order or action void with the articulation that no limitation runs against the void order---If such tendency is not deprecated and a party is allowed to approach the Court of law on his sweet will without taking care…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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