| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 178 1987 SLD 178 1987 SCMR 1562 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 330K of 1986, decided on 12th May, 1987. (On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 1081986 in A.57(K) 1982).
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
N.A. Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court and R.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Imam Ali Kaai, D.A.G. and Yousaf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 330K of 1986, decided on 12th May, 1987. (On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 1081986 in A.57(K) 1982).
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
N.A. Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court and R.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Imam Ali Kaai, D.A.G. and Yousaf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
MAQSOOD AHMAD SHAIKH
VS
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Establishment Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi
Law:
Section:
(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973-----Rr. 4(b)(ii), 5(1)(iv) & 6-A--Real import of sub-rule (1)(iv) of R.5--Where major penalty is proposed to be imposed, Authority is required to take into consideration charge and allegations served on accused; explanation of accused; finding of Inquiry Officer or Committee and recommendation of Authorised Officer regarding penalty to be imposed--Explanation of accused referred to in sub-rule (iv) of R.5 does not mean preliminary denial or admission of accused Officer-Proper explanation of accused officer can only be furnished if he is supplied with a copy of inquiry report `--Accused officer must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken against him--Mere fact that personal hearing was given to him, would not be sufficient compliance with the Rule--Failure to furnish copy of inquiry report to accused officer would be fatal to validity of final order passed--Authorised Officer, on receipt of report of Inquiry Officer, recording finding that charges against accused not proved--Authorised Officer in such case could not forward case to Authority for imposing penalty on accused officer--Authority in exercise of its reviewing power under R.6-A not competent to pass order adverse to interest of accused officer without affording him opportunity of hearing--Accused officer exonerated of all charges levelled against him and Authorised Officer recommending his reinstatement with immediate effect and after reinstatement he might be retired under S.13(ii), Civil Servants Act, 1973--Order of compulsory retirement passed by Authority, in circumstance, set aside. Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary P L D 1981 SC 176 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-- ---S. 4--Service Tribunal in appeal, held, exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding appeal on its own independent findings that the appellant accused officer was guilty of all charges when in fact the Enquiry Officer found him guilty only of one charge of which he was exonerated by Authorised Officer. JUDGMENT ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This appeal by leave of this Court is directed…
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