2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD and others Versus EJAZ AHMAD
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Actg. C.J. and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD and others Versus EJAZ AHMAD |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (b) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (b) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Actg. C.J. and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD and others Versus EJAZ AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.-G: for Appellants.
- G.N. Gauhar, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 2007.
- "Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal had misdirected itself in reinstating the respondent in service by the impugned judgment, dated 26-7-2005 after it had found that he had not carried out the repair work and had been absent from duty and rude to his superiors.
- 3. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General entered appearance on behalf of Executive Engineer (appellant) and contended that factum of wilful absence and misbehaviour have not at all been adverted to by learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that procedural lapses should not have been given undue importance as no prejudice whatsoever was caused against the respondent.
- 4. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that glaring illegalities have been committed during the disciplinary proceedings by the Department which cannot be equated to that of "procedural lapses" as contended by learned Assistant Advocate-General. It is worth-mentioning that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but amazing no show-cause notice was given as envisaged under section 3(2) of the Ordinance and besides that fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent to defend his case properly which is not only a flagrant violation of the provisions of the said Ordinance but well-recognized principles of natural justice and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. In view of above grave illegalities committed by the Department the learned Service Tribunal has rightly held that respondent-Department may initiate afresh action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The prescribed procedure which is mandatory in nature must be followed and it cannot be flouted on the pretext that the alleged charges against a Government employee are serious in nature.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 26-7-2006 in Appeal No.480 of 2005 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore).
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212 (3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether Service Tribunal misdirected itself in reinstating civil servant in service after it had found that he did not carry out repair work and had been absent from duty and was rude to his superiors.
S. 3
Principles of natural justice--Applicability
Show-cause notice, non-issuance of
Effect
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, but no show-cause notice was issued to civil servant and he was dismissed from service
Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of civil servant and reinstated him in service
By not giving show-cause notice to civil servant as envisaged under S.3(2) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him to defend his case properly
Such was a flagrant violation of the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and principles of natural justice and was sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings
When such grave illegality was committed by department, Service Tribunal had rightly found that authorities might initiate fresh action against civil servant
Prescribed procedure which was mandatory in nature must be followed and it could not be flouted on the pretext that alleged charges against government employee were serious in nature
Supreme Court declined to interfere with judgment passed by Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, ACTG. C.J.
Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated on account of inefficiency and misconduct, the respondent was dismissed from service but reinstated by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of judgment impugned, hence this appeal.
2. Leave to appeal was granted vide order, dated 17-11-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal had misdirected itself in reinstating the respondent in service by the impugned judgment, dated 26-7-2005 after it had found that he had not carried out the repair work and had been absent from duty and rude to his superiors. (2) Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia the above and the other submissions. The office is directed to set down the main appeal on its present record, within a period of 6 months."
3. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General entered appearance on behalf of Executive Engineer (appellant) and contended that factum of wilful absence and misbehaviour have not at all been adverted to by learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that procedural lapses should not have been given undue importance as no prejudice whatsoever was caused against the respondent.
4. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that glaring illegalities have been committed during the disciplinary proceedings by the Department which cannot be equated to that of "procedural lapses" as contended by learned Assistant Advocate-General. It is worth-mentioning that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but amazing no show-cause notice was given as envisaged under section 3(2) of the Ordinance and besides that fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent to defend his case properly which is not only a flagrant violation of the provisions of the said Ordinance but well-recognized principles of natural justice and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. In view of above grave illegalities committed by the Department the learned Service Tribunal has rightly held that respondent-Department may initiate afresh action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The prescribed procedure which is mandatory in nature must be followed and it cannot be flouted on the pretext that the alleged charges against a Government employee are serious in nature. The judgment impugned being unexceptionable does not warrant interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. M.H./E-2/SC Appeal dismissed.