| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1243 2002 SLD 1243 2002 SCMR 775 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1224 of 1995, decision dated: 17-02-1999
SH. IJAZ NISAR, SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ
Haliz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1224 of 1995, decision dated: 17-02-1999
SH. IJAZ NISAR, SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ
Haliz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
ZAFAR YASIN--Applicant
VS
PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and another
Law:
Section:
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---Ss. 3-A(2)(b) & 4---Fundamental Rules, R.29---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Appeal---Service Tribunal awarded penalty of reduction in time scale to the civil servant by three stages, but did not specify the period from which it had to operate---Chairman of Tribunal, in exercise of powers under S.3-A(2)(b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, after having noticed this omission on the part of both the Members of Tribunal, directed the Authority to take into consideration the omission and pass an appropriate order under Fundamental Rules, F.R.29---Validity---Service Tribunal was bound to specify the period for which penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale. had to operate in line with Fundamental Rules, R.29--Supreme Court remanded the case to Service Tribunal to do the needful within two months. ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---After arguing this appeal for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to the .last paragraph of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal. which reads as under:-- "4. Before parting with this judgment, the impugned order of penalty suffers'from legal lacuna, as specific period for which reduction by three stages in the time scale has to operate, has not been mentioned, and it is violative of the Fundamental Rule 29, as the appellant cannot be deprived for indefinite period, but for a specific period. Since this point has not peen taken by any Member, therefore, it is beyond my scope as both learned Members have not taken (notice) of this legal infrmity. I would, therefore, suggest to the departmental authority to take into consideration…
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