Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 1033 1992 SLD 1033 1992 PLC 930
Service Tribunal, N.W.F.P.
Appeal No. 254 of 1989, decided on 26th February 1991.
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHATTAK AND TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, 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

1992 P L C (C.S.) 930 ZAHIR SHAH

VS

THE COMMISSIONER, MALAKAND, SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and another 1992 P L C (C.S.) 930 ZAHIR SHAH vs THE COMMISSIONER, MALAKAND, SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service--- ---- Compulsory retirement---Civil servant was allotted residential house on condition that same would be vacated by him within 30 days from receipt of notice of Authority for its vacation---As said house was required by Authority to accommodate another officer, Authority issued notice to civil servant to vacate house according to commitment, but he failed to do same due to non-­availability of alternate accommodation and some other reasons---Civil servant was removed from service holding him guilty of misbehaviour and defiant attitude---Held, that no doubt civil servant had committed to vacate house within 30 days of the demand made by Authority and he was given ample time to find alternate accommodation for himself, but instead of resorting to extreme step of removal from service, despite civil servant's thirty years long service, he could be ejected through police as was done by Authority later on, it the Authority was not inclined to be compassionate to him by providing him alternate accommodation---Such an extreme step was not at all warranted particularly when civil servant was a low paid employee and had a family of 16 members---Penalty imposed on civil servant for not abiding by his undertaking thus was very harsh, (b) Civil service--- ---- Compulsory retirement---Authority prior to taking action against civil servant, failed to appoint authorised officer to proceed against civil servant, and instead acted itself as authorised officer by appointing an inquiry officer, a person who had earlier given civil servant a notice to vacate disputed house allotted to him---Impartial inquiry in a case could not be expected of a person who was a party to it---Authority removing civil servant from service, issued civil servant a charge-sheet whereas it was the job of authorised officer---No show-cause notice was given to civil servant before imposition of major penalty on him---Authority had not been able to deal with case dispassionately and judiciously and had inflicted punishment on civil servant which by no means was commensurate with charge of backing out of his commitment---Authority admittedly…
🔒
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