SCMR 1998

1998 PLP 2335 (SCMR)

ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD,

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1271‑L of 1996, decided on 1st January, 1998.
Honorable Judges
Raja Afrasiab Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP 2335 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Raja Afrasiab Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ
Parties ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
Primary Law Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2335 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2335 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2335 (SCMR) (ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑

Representation

  • Sh. Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney‑General with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 1st January, 1998.
  • Sh. Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney-General with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 28‑11‑1995, passed in Appeal No.288(L) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Compulsory retirement on proof of misconduct‑‑‑Service Tribunal taking lenient view, reduced penalty of retirement to that of stoppage of two annual increments without any future effect‑‑‑Period of absence from duty i.e. compulsory retirement to his rejoining his department, in consequence of that order was treated to be extraordinary leave without pay‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Impugned order of Service Tribunal appeared to be just and fair‑‑‑Civil servant had been re‑instated in service by Service Tribunal by setting aside order of his compulsory retirement from service‑‑‑Lenient view having been taken by Service Tribunal, no further leniency could be shown to civil servant in peculiar circumstances of the case‑‑‑Service Tribunal was competent to vary, alter or suspend impugned order in lieu of valid grounds in accordance with law‑‑ Impugned judgment had been passed with due application of mind to facts and circumstances of case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.

On 22-5-1979, the petitioner, Abdur Rehman was employed as Naib-Qasid in WAPDA. He was, however, ordered to retire compulsorily on 5th of April, 1995 in lieu of misconduct having beer, committed by him. The Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad partially accepted the appeal of the petitioner with the observations:-- "It was also pointed out that the appellant lodged a complaint against the Medical Superintendent on 5-4-1994 for not properly treating his child who was sick with pneumonia and running high temperature of 106 degree, and was under emergency treatment. According to him the medicines prescribed by the lady doctor were not approved by the Medical Superintendent. It was asserted that the Medical Superintendent lodged his complaint on 6-4-1994 in retaliation to the complaint filed by him to respondent No.

1. One thing is quite obvious that the infant son of the appellant was suffering from pneumonia and running high temperature. It appears that the appellant lost his tamper when the Medical Superintendent did not agree to the medicines prescribed by the lady doctor. We do not endorse this sort of behaviour with a responsible officer like the Medical Superintendent but keeping in view the psychological strain and the trauma under which the appellant must have been because of the grave illness of his son, the penalty awarded seems to be rather harsh and excessive.' The same stands reduced to stoppage of two annual increments without any future effect. The period of absence from duty i.e. compulsory retirement to his rejoining the department, in consequence of this order, be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioner through this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The petitioner himself has argued the case. He states that there is no justification to stop his two annual increments, specially, when his compulsory retirement order has been set aside being improper and illegal.

3. We do not agree with the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order of the Tribunal appears to be just and fair. He has been reinstated in service by the Tribunal by setting aside his order of compulsory retirement from service. He is, therefore, required to remain satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal which does not suffer from any legal flaw. A lenient view has been taken by the Tribunal and no further leniency can be shown to the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The Tribunal is, undoubtedly, competent to vary, alter or suspend the impugned order in lieu of valid grounds in accordance with law, The impugned judgment has been passed with due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed by refusing leave to appeal. A.A./A-64/S Leave refused.