Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1862 2011 SLD 1862 2011 PLC 1450
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Punjab
Service Appeals Nos.5 and 7 of 2006, decision dated: 8-04-2011.
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ AND IJAZ UL AHSAN, JJ, MEMBERS

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Miss NADIA SIDDIQUE and another

VS

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others Miss NADIA SIDDIQUE and another vs LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others

Law:

Section:

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)-------S. 10---Punjab Government Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966, R.12---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25---Termination of service---Services of the appellants were terminated without conducting inquiry during their probation period on the ground that they provided declaration of their assets and documentary proof of their assets with delay---No allegation against appellants that they had concealed their assets from the authority or delayed submission of declaration of assets was with some ulterior motive, or possessed assets were beyond known sources of income which could justify the extreme step in the shape of termination of their services---Appellants joined service after qualifying a competitive examination and were performing their duties as Civil Judge after obtaining training from the Judicial Academy---No complaint regarding integrity of the appellants or competency or efficiency was on record---Termination of the services of the appellants only due to their alleged negligence and delay in the submission of declaration of their assets, was too harsh---Punishment should commensurate with the gravity of the acts of omission or commission---Authority could have issued appropriate warning to appellants to be careful in future---If it was a matter of false declaration or gross misconduct, running counter to sacred assignment of administration of justice, then, it could not be termination simpliciter as it was bound to bring stigma; and in that eventuality, authority ought to have given a right of hearing to the appellants through regular inquiry and take appropriate action in consequence thereof---Two other Civil Judges also submitted delayed declaration of assets, but they were not terminated and were allowed to complete their probation period---Civil servants who were similarly placed, could not be treated differently---Appellants, in circumstances, were treated discriminately in violation of Art.25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed equality of all the citizens before law and equal protection of law---Appellants were ordered to be reinstated in…
🔒
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