| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 459 1986 SLD 459 1986 SCMR 421 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 661 to 663 of 1984, decision dated: 14-10-1985. (On appeal from judgment and order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12-10-1982 and 17-10-1982 passed in Appeals Nos. 1574(L)--1841(L) and 17(K) of 1984).
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND S.A. NUSRAT, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeals Nos. 661 to 663 of 1984, decision dated: 14-10-1985. (On appeal from judgment and order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12-10-1982 and 17-10-1982 passed in Appeals Nos. 1574(L)--1841(L) and 17(K) of 1984).
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND S.A. NUSRAT, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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 through SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS and others
VS
ABDUL KARIM SHAIKH and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----Art. 212(3)--Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 2(2) & (3)--Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether according to scheme of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, it was permissible to designate same person as Authority and also Authorised Officer under sub-rules (2) & (3) of r. 2 of said Rules. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 212(3)--Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 2(2) & (3)--Appeal--Notification whereby definition of Authorised Officer as given in cl. (3) of r. 2 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1973, meant an "officer authorised" by Authority to perform function of an Authorised Officer under Rules "or, if no Officer was so authorised, the authority", amended subsequent to dismissal/ compulsory retirement of respondents from service--Tribunal deciding appeal of respondents in their favour but leaving question of consequential relief open to competent authority--No prejudice was, therefore, caused to appellants by decision of Tribunal--Decision of question on which leave was granted not considered necessary in view of finding of Tribunal--Appeal dismissed. Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy A.-G. assisted by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants in (Civil Appeals Nos. 661, 662 of 1984). Ch. Hameed-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by R.E. Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 661 of 1984). Ex parte for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 662 of 1984). Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985. JUDGMENT S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This judgment will dispose of the abovementioned three appeals which have arisen out of a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12-10-1982 and leave to appeal was also granted by a common order of this Court, dated 8-4-1984. 2. Leave was granted in these cases to examine the question "whether according to the scheme of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, it is permissible to designate the same person as the "Authority" and also the "Authorised Officer" under sub-rules (2) and (3) of…
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