Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1631 2006 SLD 1631 2006 PLC 272
Sindh High Court
Suit No.539 of 1993, decision dated: 17th January; 2006.
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J

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

MEHBOOB RABBANI

VS

HABIB BANK LIMITED MEHBOOB RABBANI vs HABIB BANK LIMITED

Law:

Section:

Master and servant-------Wrongful dismissal of servant on allegation of misconduct---Mode of proof---Suit by servant for damages and compensation on account of huge present and future economic loss and on account of undergoing irreversible phase of perpetual mental agony, physical stress and strain, social persecution, pangs of miseries and no likelihood of getting suitable job---Damages---Kinds of---Calculation of damages and compensation---Criteria and principles elucidated. Plaintiff in the present case, was dismissed without any enquiry and the plaintiff was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself. From the show-cause notice and the reply it was evident that the charges levelled against the plaintiff were factual and controversial in nature and, regular inquiry was a must. The holding of regular enquiry was a rule and dispensing with the regular inquiry was an exception. The enquiry could be dispensed with in terms of Service Rules by assigning cogent reasons. The dismissal order clearly showed that the requirement of inquiry was dispensed with, without application of mind and without assigning any reason. By not assigning the reasons the competent authorities had violated the provisions of Clause 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. From the reading of the show-cause notice and its reply it was clear that facts in the case regarding alleged misconduct of the plaintiff was controversial and to resolve the controversy regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with. The plaintiff was also not provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself and no personal hearing was also provided to the plaintiff before passing the dismissal order. The dismissal from service in summary manner was in violation of principles of natural justice and could not be sustained. Employer, who itself has framed the rules for its domestic purpose, was bound to strictly follow the same. In case of awarding major penalty, a proper inquiry was to be conducted in accordance with law wherein full opportunity of defence was to be provided. In cases of misconduct, without an explicit order of dispensation of the requirement, of regular inquiry the departure from the normal…
🔒
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