Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 2258 1988 SLD 2258 1988 SCMR 597
Supreme Court of Pakistan

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND USMAN ALI SHAH, 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

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF  PAKISTAN and 2 others--Appellants

VS

MUHAMMAD SHARIF--Respondent

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961

Section: 39(e)

(a) Agricultural Development Bank Staff Services Regulations---   ---Regln.13(1)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Civil service--Leave to appeal, grant of--Number of decisions of various Courts on subject--Authoritative pronouncement called for--Leave to appeal granted in order to give an authoritative decision on competence of a civil suit and the relief of re-instatement in service granted to an employee of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan against an order passed under Staff Services Regulation No.13(1) of termination of service on three months notice or pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason therefore.   (b) Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance (VI of 1961)--   --S.39(e)--Agricultural Development Bank Staff Services Regulation, Reglns. Nos.13(1) 95--Civil service--Dismissal or termination from between the parties 7/8 years ago, quarrel in respect of the same re-emerged on the day of occurrence and that accused was armed with a revolver and on exchange of abuses service--Two distinct powers available to competent authority--Validity of proceedings against employee--Respondent employee of Agricultural Development Bank, a statutory Corporation--Allegation of being corrupt--Services terminated under Staff Service Regulation No.13(1) without assigning any reason, on payment of three months pay in lieu of notice--Order set aside by Civil Court, and upheld in appeal, on ground that employee having been found corrupt, action against him should have been taken under Regulation 95 which provides for procedure and punishment for misconduct--Employers appeal before Supreme Court--Termination of service of employee is absolute discre­tion of Bank--Separate Regulations dealing with termination of service and providing for procedure and punishment for misconduct/corrup­tion--Two distinct powers being available to competent authority, there was no bar, express or implied to competent authority invoking either or anyone in particular--Authoritative decisions by Supreme Court having consistently conceded such a power to competent authority, of course not so if it was shown to be mala fide either in fact or in law--Appeal…
🔒
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