Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 984 1994 SLD 984 1994 PLC 1534
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 680 of 1990, decision dated: 19-12-1993.
ABDUL HAMID KHAN AND SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JAFRI, 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 SHARIF

VS

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, LAHORE and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Civil service------- Removal from service---Reinstatement---Civil servant who was Stenographer in Office of District Attorney was removed from service on charge of misconduct with order of Solicitor and such order of removal was upheld by Secretary, Law---Post of Stenographer was not included in Schedule annexed to Solicitor's Department, which meant that neither Authority nor Authorised Officer had been notified in respect of stenographers of Solicitor's Department---Where Authority had not been notified it was either Government itself or an Officer or Authority designated by it that could function as Authority---No one having been designated/notified as Authority in case of civil servant, both Solicitor and District Attorney could not function as Authority and Authorised Officer respectively nor Secretary, Law could hear appeal in case of civil servant---Order of removing civil servant from service, passed incompetently was set aside and civil servant was reinstated in service. NLR 1978 Service 306 ref. Ch. Abdur Rab for Appellant. Malik Abdul Haq, District Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant, Muhammad Sharif was working as Stenographer in the Office of the District Attorney, Lahore in the Sessions Court when as a result of a departmental enquiry held against him he was removed from service vide the Solicitor/Authority's order dated 27-6-1987 on several charges of misconduct. The punishment was upheld vide order dated 30-8-1990 by the Secretary, Law and hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The main contention of the appellant is that respondent No. 3/District Attorney, Lahore, who acted as the Authorised Officer in this case "was never properly constituted Authorised Officer nor he was/is designated as "Authorised Officer" under delegation of power Rules in case of Steno­grapher/appellant". The contention has been controverted by the respondent who claim that "as per rule 2 (proviso) (of the E&D Rules) the Authority has the power to appoint an officer to act as "Authorised Officer" where no officer has been so authorised or designated" and that the appointment of…
🔒
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