1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AMIR MIRZA BAIG Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR MIRZA BAIG Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Sind Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AMIR MIRZA BAIG Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 2 (b), Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Ss. 2 (a) & 4-‑Disciplinary action‑Penalty under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 can be imposed upon a Civil servant" as defined in S. 2 (b) of Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973‑Person leaving service under Sind Government and joining service under Federal Government‑Ceases to be a civil servant under Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973‑No action, held, could be initiated by Provincial Government against such person when he was a Federal Government servant‑Such person however, held, within definition of "Civil Servant" as defined under S. 2 (a) of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and could seek remedy before Sind Service Tribunal‑Penalty of censure imposed by Provincial Government, in circumstances, held, without jurisdiction hence set aside by Tribunal. Appellant in person. Hassan Akbar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN)‑‑The appellant was working as Instructor, Grade‑17, Government Institute of Commercial Education, Azizabad, Karachi, on ad hoc basis initially for six months. During that period on anonymous application, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the appellant on 22nd October, 1976. He left the Provincial Govern ment service on 22nd October, 1976 and joined the Federal Government Service as Principal, Secretariat Training Centre, Karachi. Meanwhile the Provincial Government of Sind served a charge‑sheet on the appellant when he was a Central Government Servant, i.e. on 28th July, 1979. No action was taken on the charge‑sheet, but after two years on 20th June, 1981 the appellant was served by the Government of Sind, Secretary Education Department with a show‑cause notice alleging misconduct and proposing to impose one of the penalties under the Government of Sind Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The charges were the same as in the earlier charge‑sheet. The contention of the appellant is that at the time he was served with the charge‑sheet or the notice, he was not the civil servant within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. That the Government could not, therefore, initiate any action against him. A civil servant as defined under the said Act is a person who is member of civil service of the province or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province. It would appear that while relieving the appellant to join his post in the Central Government, the Provincial Govern ment had reserved the orders regarding the disciplinary matter pending against him. But once the appellant had left the Provincial Government, he ceased to be answerable for his misconduct as the Provincial Government could only inflict punishment under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules against a "civil servant" as defined in the Civil Servants Act. Under the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, however, civil servants includes a person who has been a member of the civil service of they province and even a dismissed or retired person from the Provincial Civil. Service can appeal if he is aggrieved by any order of the Provincial Government. The position, therefore, emerges that the action of the Provincial Government was without jurisdiction but the aggrieved person can appeal against it and file appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal. The learned A. A.‑G. is also of the opinion that once he ceased to be a member of the Provincial Civil Service, no action could be initiated by the Provincial Government against him after expiry of five years when he was a Federal Government servant. Therefore, at the most the Provincial Government could send the A. C. Rs. or Character Roll of the appellant to the Federal Government for their perusal and record. The punishment of censure imposed on the appellant by the Provincial Government being without jurisdiction is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. No order is made as to costs. A. E. Appeal allowed.