| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3129 = 1980 SLD 3129 = 1980 PLD 310 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-15 of 1977, decided on 12th January, 1980.
Presented By: DorabPatel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ
Gohar Ali Baloch, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbarr Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record and Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General (Sind) for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. K-15 of 1977, decided on 12th January, 1980.
Presented By: DorabPatel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ
Gohar Ali Baloch, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbarr Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record and Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General (Sind) for
Respondents.
ZARAR KHAN-Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF'SIND AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
Section: 2(2), (3), 5(1) to (5), 6, 5(3), (4), 4, 24
(a) Slid Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 Rr. 2(2), (3), 5(1) to (5) & 6-Compulsory retirement-'Authority' as defined- by. r. 2(2)-Different than 'authorised officer' as defined by r. 2(3)-Procedures provided by rr. 2(2) & 2(3)-Alternative-Authorised Officer choosing to adopt one procedure cannot adopt other procedure and vice versa-As many as 12 departmental inquiries under r. 5(2) on same allegations already initiated against appellant and even Inquiry Officer appointed-Further proceedings according to r. 2(2), hence, could only be taken according to procedure provided by r. 6 and authorised Officer could not simultaneously adopt alternate course and proceed against appellant under c. 2(3)-Provisions of r. 5(3), (4) also not strictly followed-Proceedings culminating in appellant's compulsory retirement, held, in contravention of rules on subject and as such without lawful authority-Subsequent exoneration of appellant by authorised Officer, in all departmental inquiries, held further, also rendered proceeding anomalous.-[Civil services-Words and phrases]. The 'Authority' as defined by sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 is a person different than the 'Authorised Officer' as defined by sub-rule (3) of rule 2. These persons were designated by Notification issued by the Provincial Government from time to time. By Notification No. S. VII(S & GAD) 1/123/73 dated 19-10-73 published in the Sind Government Gazette dated 23rd October, 1973 soon after the enforcement of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the `Officer competent to appoint any civil servant' was designated the 'Authority' under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 with respect to the Provincial Government servants. Subsequently, by another Notification No. S. IX. R. F. G./ S&GAD/2/E/1/75 dated 21-8-75 an amendment was made in sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 whereby the Provincial Chief Minister was, by definition, constituted as the 'Authority' for the purposes of the said Rules. A reading of rule…