2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AFZAL BAJWA Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL BAJWA Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL BAJWA Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Mansoor Humayun for Appellant.
- District Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 4 (a)(iii), (b)(ii)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑ Compulsory retirement from service‑‑‑Civil servant who was Inspector in Excise and Taxation Department was accused of poor tax recovery and initially penalty of stoppage of one increment, was imposed but after one and a half months penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him‑‑ Authority could not give satisfactory/plausible explanations as to why after imposition of minor penalty, case of civil servant was re‑opened after one and a half months despite neither Authorised Officer had recommended for imposition of major penalty nor any show‑cause notice was issued to the civil servant and he was also not provided opportunity of hearing‑‑ Figures/recoveries made by civil servant had shown that he did not lag behind his colleagues in recovering the arrears and the current taxes‑‑ Authority had not claimed that civil servant misstated regarding said recoveries and the case of the civil servant was on better and stronger footing than cases of co‑civil servants who were also proceeded on same allegation, but their appeals were accepted,‑‑Civil servant during his thirty six years of service had never been communicated any adverse remarks‑‑‑In absence of any valid ground for imposition of any penalty upon civil servant, penalty imposed on him was set aside. 1988 S C M R 691 ref. (b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑‑Compulsory retirement from service‑‑‑Appeal, competency of‑‑‑Authority had contended that civil servant, who had already drawn the amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits having himself undertaken not to file appeal in case he was paid his pensionary benefits was estopped from agitating the matter in the Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant could not be debarred from seeking legal remedy because there was no estoppel against law‑‑‑Penalties imposed upon the civil servant being themselves without justification, receipt of pensionary and other benefits would not stand in the way of his regaining his rightful position.
Judgment & Decree
24% 6,54,397 24% It has not been claimed by the department that the appellant has made misstatement regarding these recoveries but 'it has been branded as unsatisfactory.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention particularly to the fact that Sandha area was the constituency of the then Chief Minister, Punjab who often visited the area. As such the people of the area who felt encouraged by such gestures of the Chief Minister would feel encouraged and were out to defy the orders of the Government. Moreover, the people of the area, being in the periphery of the Lahore city, being mostly of rural background, were not in the habit of paying such site taxes.
7. A reference was also made to the facts that on these very grounds, appeals filed by the following Excise and Tax. Inspectors were accepted by the Director General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab:‑‑ Order No. & Date.
1. Malik Muhammad Alam No.1999‑99/1110‑E (E&T)‑II E&T Inspector Dated 24‑8‑1999
2. Mr. Taha Hussain, No.1999‑99/1117‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 24‑8‑1999
3. Mr. Muhammad Rashid, No.1999‑99/1114‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 24‑8‑1999
4. Sardar Muhammad Sharit, No.1999‑99/119‑E(E&T)‑Il, E&T Inspector Dated 24.‑8‑1999
5. Rana Rashid Ahmed, No.1998‑98/2030‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 24‑11‑1999
6. Mr. Maqsood Ahmad, No.1999‑99/1144‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 25‑8‑1999
7. Malik Muhammad Aslam, ,, No.1999‑99/1111‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 24‑8‑1999
8. Mr. Fida Hussain, No.1999‑99/1146‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 25‑8‑1999
9. Mr. Riaz Bhinder, No.1999‑99/1141‑(E&T)‑II, E&T Inspector Dated 25‑8‑ I 999
8. The learned D.A. when confronted with the above proposition was frank enough to concede that the appellant has been unjustificably discriminated and has been unduly imposed a harsh penalty.
9. After going through the record and hearing the arguments addressed from the both sides, it appears that the case of the appellant was on better and stronger footings than the cases of the appellants whose names have been mentioned above. The area indeed was of rural nature where residents maintained buffalos etc. and fell within the constituency of the then Chief Minister. The residents of the area had no commercial background and as such much tax recovery could not have been expected from them. The figures/recoveries made by the appellant have not been disputed by the department. The figures show and show very clearly that the appellant has not lagged behind his collegures in recovering the arrears and the current taxes. As such there was no valid ground for imposition of any penalty upon the appellant. His claim that during his 36 years of service, he had never been communicated any adverse remarks, has not been challenged either. There is yet another aspect of the matter that even if it is conceded that the appellant has failed to show recovery upto the mark yet it appears his first remiss and according to the establishment norms of justice, all such types of lapses merit to be condoned. Reference is made to dictum of the honourable Supreme Court reported as 1988 SCMR 691.
10. The learned D.A., however, emphatically argued that the appellant had himself undertaken not to file appeal in case he is paid his pensionary benefits, hence he was estopped from agitating the matter in the Court. This, I am afraid cannot debar the appellant from seeking legal remedy inasmuch as there can be no estoppel against law. He also pointed out that since he had already drawn the amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits he had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This plea is equally devoid of any force, as, the very penalties imposed upon the appellant were without any justification, as such the receipt of pensionary and other benefits would not stand in the way of his regaining his rightful position.
11. What comes out of the above discussion is that both penalties not being sustainable in law are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service from the date when he was compulsorily retired and would be entitled to all consequential benefits. He shall, however, refund all the benefits drawn by him in lump sum.
12. There will be no order as to the costs. H.B.T./42/P Appeal accepted.