Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 778 1988 SLD 778 1988 PLC 254
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-582 of 1986, decided on 8th December, 1986.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

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

ALI ANWAR SHAH

VS

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN and another.

Law:

Section:

Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vol. I-- ---8.213-B and subsidiary R. 4(ii) Efficiency and Discipline Rules-­Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-­Railway employee convicted by Court of law for criminal offence-­Departmental punishment--Competent authority should consider and decide whether in circumstances of case removal from service short of dismissal would meet ends of justice--Grievance petition against dismissal from service of convicted employee dismissed by Labour Court--Petitioner's plea that he was neither charge-sheeted nor inquiry held against him--Labour Court, held, rightly concluded that it was not necessary--Grievance petition, however, should have been admitted for decision as to whether in circumstances of case impugned dismissal order was justified or competent authority be asked to reconsider matter so far as quantum and kind of punishment was concerned-­Decision of Labour Court set-aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for re-decision after issuance of process and opportunity of evidence to parties. Asmat Kamal for Appellant. Saifullah Khan for Respondents. 1st December, 1986. JUDGMENT This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 10-8-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan. 2. The appellant was dismissed from service on account of being convicted in a criminal case in which he was sentenced to two years R.I. and fine by the trial Court but on appeal the punishment of imprisonment was set aside and the fine was enhanced to Rs. 5,000. The grievance of the appellant is that he was neither charge-sheeted nor any inquiry was held against him. The learned lower Court has rightly said that this was not necessary. Rule 213-B appearing on l page 90 of the Personnel Manual Volume-I is clear on the point. It reads as under: --- "213. APPOINTMENT/ RETENTION IN SERVICE OF PERSONS CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW IN CRIMINAL CASES.-- (a) ............ (b) A person already in service, who is convicted in a Court of law for a criminal offence, renders himself liable to dismissal by reasons of his conviction -but the question of retention in service rests with…
🔒
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