| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 1111 1984 SLD 1111 1984 PLC 304 |
Service Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. 86, 87 and 88 of 1978, decided on 15th May, 1983.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, CHAIRMAN, WALAYAT AHMAD KHAN AND RAFIQ HUSSAIN AGHA, MEMBERS
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeals Nos. 86, 87 and 88 of 1978, decided on 15th May, 1983.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, CHAIRMAN, WALAYAT AHMAD KHAN AND RAFIQ HUSSAIN AGHA, MEMBERS
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ANISUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS
VS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)- S. 4, r. 17 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI Appeal before Tribunal-Limitation -Thirty days from communication of final order whether original or appellate made by departmental authority - Appeal against penalty of dismissal made when departmental appeal was pending-Appeal before Tribunal dismissed as time-barred and matter remanded by Supreme Court holding that appeal was within limitation-Departmental appeal decided while matter pending before Supreme Court and penalty of dismissal altered to that of compulsory retirement - Application for amendment of appeal made after case remanded by Supreme Court to Tribunal and one year after admission when final hearing Already fixed and some preliminary objections already disposed of Amendment of memo. of appeal, for introducing new cause of action after appeal against such cause of action had become barred by limitation, in circumstances, refused - Held: Any such amendment would defeat the purpose of prescribed limitation as meanwhile a right had accrued to opposite party for pleading a valid defence of limitation. (b) Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973- -- R. 5(4)(b)-Action by Authorised Officer after receipt of enquiry report-Action proposed to be taken to be intimated to accused with copy of findings of enquiry enabling him to show-cause against such action--Accused neither supplied copy of enquiry report nor afforded opportunity of show-cause against proposed action Impugned penalty order of dismissal from service, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to Authorised Officer for proceeding afresh. Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F. P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176 rel. Z. U. Ahmed for Appellants. Hasan Akbar, Asstt. A: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th May, 1983. JUDGMENT MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellants who are Excise and Taxation Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Excise and Taxation Inspector, respectively, have preferred these service appeals against the orders of dismissal from service passed against them by the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, by an order, dated 27th July,…
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