Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3264 1970 SLD 3264 = 1970 PLD 811
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1683/S of 1968, decided on 10th December 1969.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Shameem Hussain Kadri, JJ
Mian Fazle Mahmood for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Anwar Standing Counsel with Mian Ata-ul Haq for
Respondent.

Major MUHAMMAD NAWAZ---Petitioner

VERSUS

PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD --Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, r. 6(5)(a)-Provision mandatory-Non-compliance constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity which per se would vitiate action taken-Charges levelled found to be shorn of details in charge-sheet-Non-supply of statement of allegations-Held, caused prejudice to accused in circumstances of case. Rule 6(5)(a) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Dis cipline) Rules, 1960, which deals with cases in which the major penalty is called for, provides that the authority having power to impose the penalty shall frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of the allegations on which it is based and of any other circumstances which the autho rity proposes to take into consideration when passing orders on the case. This is a mandatory provision of law and the use of the word "shall" which applies both to the framing of the charge-sheet, communicating it to the accused and to the supply of a statement of the allegations makes it incumbent upon the Authority to comply with it. A non-compliance with it would amount to transgression of an obligatory rule which lays down the minimum standards comprising reasonable opportunity to be afforded to a Government servant against whom action is sought to be taken. The amount of prejudice, which would be caused to the person concerned, need not be taken into consideration, for non-compliance with the rule itself would constitute denial of a reasonable opportunity which per se would vitiate the action taken. In this case, however, the absence of the statement of allegations particularly when the charges were shorn of all details in the charge-sheet did cause prejudice to the petitioner because he was deprived of information as to the basis on which the charges had been framed against him and the other circumstances which were taken into consideration when passing orders of his dismissal. (b) Government servant-Enquiry---Bias---Enquiry should not violate basic rules of natural justice-Enquiry held by biased officer and report placed before competent authority without informing him of accused having protested against appointment of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register