Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 2064 1981 SLD 2064 1981 PLC 125
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 98-R of 1980, decided on 7th October, 1980.
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ

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

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

VS

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the and order dated 2-4-1980 of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Camp, at Karachi, in Appeal No. 16 (K) of 1978). Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960- ----R.8---Compulsory retirement-Allegations against respondent in absence of an enquiry remaining un-established-Tribunal, held, right in holding that impugned order' of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained in law. Syed Iftikhar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 9th October. 1980 ORDER FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Service Tribunal dated 2-4-1980 setting aside the compulsory retirement from service of respondent Muhammad Arshad Jawaid for an alleged misconduct and directing his re-instatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent was on 15-2-1971, charge-sheeted for misconduct, negligence in observing rules and causing loss to Government and for inefficiency. In his reply the respondent Muhammad Arshad denied the allegations and demanded a detailed inquiry and also desired that he may be heard in person. The aforesaid charge-sheet was withdrawn and substituted by another charge-sheet dated 31-7-1971 containing the same allegations against the respondent. It was stated in the charge-sheet that Inquiry Officer had been duly appointed under rule 8 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 and the respondent was direc­ted to submit his written defence to him and to state in it whether he desired to be heard in person before the Inquiry Officer or to lead any evidence in his defence. In his reply, the respondent again denied the charges. He also questioned the authority of the Department to supersede the earlier charge-sheet which had been replied to by him Which reply according to him had been found satisfactory. In the circumstances, the respondent alleged that the question of submission of defence did not arise. Admittedly, no inquiry was held and the respondent was firstly dismissed from service but on further representation he was compulsorily retired from service by order…
🔒
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