Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1594 1991 SLD 1594 1991 PLC 703
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 692 of 1988, decided, on 16-05-1990:
MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUL HAMID KHAN, MEMBER

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 Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and othersAbdul Hamid Khan, Member HAQ NAWAZ

VS

Law:

Section:

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--- ----Rr. 4, 5 -& 6---Removal from service---Misappropriation---Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally fear charges of- misappropriation, but due to material irregularities in proceedings, same were rendered invalid---Civil servant was removed from service and was not afforded opportunity for-personal hearing and for offering explanation to recommendation of `authorised officer' which was basic and inalienable requirement of Rules in departmental proceedings---Civil servant was not provided adequate opportunity of presenting his case before `authorised officer'; first when show-cause notice was issued and second when `authorised officer' forwarded his recommendations to "Authority" which was a clear violation of R. 6(3) & (4) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975---Said acts of omission and commission on the part of `authorised officer' and Appellate Authority, held, vitiated departmental proceedings---Order of removal was set aside and case was remanded to `authorised officer' for conducting proceedings de, novo from that point wherefrom defect had crept therein. Muhammad Tufail for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, DA. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1990. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER). --Haq Nawaz, appellant while working as Junior Clerk, in the Divisional Blood Transfusion Unit, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, was proceeded against departmentally for misappropriation of laboratory fees amounting to Rs.81, 215.80 out of which a sum of Rs.28,429.30 had meanwhile- been deposited, by him. A show-cause notice -was served on the accused civil servant by the authorised officer wherein he was charged with misconduct and required to show cause as to why the major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed tin him. As a criminal case was also pending against him on the same charge in the Court of the Special Judge Anti ­Corruption, Multan, - he, therefore, requested the authorised officer to pond the departmental proceedings till a decision wits taken in the criminal case. The Authorised Officer, however, considered that the accused civil servant "has replied in a…
🔒
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