| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 3861 2024 SLD 3861, 2024 SLD 155 |
Appeal No. 103(K)CS a/w Misc. P. No. 57 of 2021, heard on 29.5.2023.
Present: Tauqeer Ahmed Khan and Shahid Ahmad, Members
IRFAN MUKHTAR BHUTTO--Appellant
VERSUS
HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN, PRIME MINISTER SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and another--Respondents
Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) rules, 1973, -Service Tribunals Act, (LXX of 1973
Section: Rr. 2(2), 3 & 5(1)(iv), S.4
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) rules, 1973--
----Rr. 2(2), 3 & 5(1)(iv)--Service Tribunals Act, (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Filing of complaint--Disciplinary proceedings--Statement of allegations--Inquiry report--Issuance of show cause--Reduction to lower post--Departmental appeal--Conducting of raid by appellant--Challenge to--Powers of authorized officer--Distinction between authorized officer and authority-- Rule-3 empowers “Authority†to impose on a Government Servant one or more penalties Rule 4 makes a mention of minor and major penalties--Intermingling of functions of “Authorized Officer†and of “Authority†is not contemplated, rather two functionaries are distinct in performance of their functions under these Rules-- It is well settled principle that where law prescribes doing of a thing in a particular mode and manner it is to be done in that way and not otherwise--All proceedings were conducted by Authority and impugned orders were passed by Authorized Officer--Whole proceedings against present appellants were conducted in violation of (E&D) Rules, 1973, and same could not be sustained--The appellant was also not afforded chance to cross examine witnesses as persons of raiding party, who accompanied appellant to conduct raid upon house of Agha Jan Akhtar, were person who could be in a better position to explain real position, but they were neither called nor examined, thus principles of natural justice have also been violated--The raid was conducted by appellant on 28.01.2018 and proceedings against him concluded in February, 2021 had also surprised us as to why such a long time was taken to conclude such departmental proceedings--The impugned orders, both original and appellant, had no value in eyes of law, as such, they were liable to be set-a-aside especially in view of fact that major penalty was imposed against appellant for a period of one year and that period has since expired till date--Appeal allowed.
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