Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1769 1985 SLD 1769 1985 PLC 325
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No. 173/136 of 1983, decided on 22nd March, 1984.
S. ABDUL, JABBAR KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY AND MIAN FAIZ KARIM, 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

MUHAMMAD HASIL

VS

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and another

Law:

Section:

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)-- ---S.4(1)(a)--Appeal before Tribunal without exhausting remedy before next higher departmental authority--Held: Appellant duty bound to exhaust all remedies available to him bye coming to Tribunal--Appeal dismissed as premature. Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. JUDGMENT S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Muhammad Hasil, Road Inspector, Punjab Highway Department Sub-Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and Chief Engineer, Punjab Highway Department, Lake Road, Lahore as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that impugned order, dated 23-9-1980, be set aside and he may be restored in service with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, while he was serving as Road Inspector was involved in a case alongwith Overseer as well as S.D.O. and was proceeded by the Secretary, C&W Department, respondent No.1 under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, as two of the co-accused held a senior rank in which the competent authority was the Secretary, C&W Department. An enquiry was conducted in this case by the XEN of the same Department who first of all gave him a questionnaire to answer certain questions and recorded his statement and at a subsequent date in his absence recorded evidence of few persons against him. On the strength of this enquiry he forwarded his case to the Secretary C&W. The Authorised Officer who was Chief Engineer in this case i.e. respondent No.2 who while imposing minor penalty on the S.D.O. as well as on the Overseer, visited him with major penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved against this dismissal he straightway went to the Labour Court and agitated his claim high­lighting the irregularities so committed by the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings so conducted by him against the appellant under the E&D Rules. The Labour Court was pleased to set aside the order of the competent authority vide its judgment,…
🔒
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