Case Details

Citation(s)
1957 SLG 101 1957 SLD 101 1957 PLD 925
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 160 of 1956 decided on 13th September 1957. DATE of hearing : 13th September 1957
A. R. CHANGEZ, J
S. Aftab Hussain for Appellant. M. B. Zaman for
Respondent

IBRAHIM

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (through the GENERAL Manager, N. W. R, Lahore)

Law: Government of India Act, 1935

Section: 240(3),181(2)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 181

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: FirstSch,14,120

(a) Government of India Act, 1935------ ----S. 240 (3)-Direction to show cause against suggested punishment included in charge sheet-Held, not sufficient compliance with provisions of sub­section (3) of S. 240-Reasonable opportunity means adequate opportunity to explain and produce defence-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 181(2). The plaintiff, a railway employee, was served with a charge-sheet by which he was required to give his defence within seven days from the date of the receipt of the charge sheet. He was also asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service or punished with any of the lesser penal­ties specified in Rule 1702-R. He was further informed that, if he so desired, he could make a request to be heard in person and could also seek the assistance of another railway employee at such interview. To this charge-sheet the plaintiff sent his reply in which he explained his position and requested to be granted a personal interview. No interview was granted and no inquiry was ever held in the presence of the plaintiff. Without serving any fresh notice, the plaintiff was dismissed, from service. Held, that the dismissal was illegal, inasmuch as, including a direction in the charge sheet that the employee should show cause against the suggested punishment was no compliance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 24C Government of India Act, 1935. At the stage of serving the charge-sheet no finding as regards the employees' misconduct could have been given nor any action could have been proposed against him. As such the service of a charge-sheet with a direction to show cause against a possible punishment could not legally have been a substitute for the show-cause notice as required by the mandatory provisions of subsection (3) of section 240 of the Government of India Act. The order of dismissal was therefore, illegal, void and a nullity. Even if in a preliminary inquiry every opportunity is given to the employee to defend himself yet, when as a result of such an inquiry he is found guilty of any misconduct and a punishment is proposed, when at that stage reasonable oppor­tunity should be given again for showing cause against the…
🔒
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