1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BAZ GUL Versus THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), MARDAN and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Parvez Khan, Chairman and |
| Parties | BAZ GUL Versus THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), MARDAN and another |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. bench comprising: Muhammad Parvez Khan, Chairman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BAZ GUL Versus THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), MARDAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Adam Khan for Appellant.
- Sher Muhammad Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 5 & 6--North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4--Termination of service for misconduct--Condemning without hearing- Effect--Misrepresentation as to age of civil servant--In ease of difference of age in birth certificate/school leaving certificate and in medical certificate, the former if produced from proper custody and entered in a proper way at the behest of a natural guardian, has got preference over the opinion of the doctor--No enquiry, however, was conducted in order to give opportunity to civil servant to defend his rights and he was condemned unheard--Case was thus remanded to Authority with direction to proceed against the civil servant in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2-10-1988 of respondent No. 1 vide which his services were terminated with effect from 30-6-1988 and his appeal having not been responded by respondent No. 2, he has moved this Tribunal through the present appeal. According to him he was appointed as Chowkidar in BPS-1 by respondent No. 1 on 16-12-1987 in Government Primary School, Darmandoona, District Mardan. He was asked to produce his age and health certificates from Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Mardan. He produced the same in which his age was shown as 17/18 years. However, the appellant was again instructed to produce another certificate which was furnished by him in which his age was given as 18 years. But not satisfied with the two medical certificates, respondent No. I called for the explanation of the appellant vide letter dated 8-8-1988 which was answered by him on 21-8-1988. However, respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order through which he was removed from service with effect from 30-6-1988. He challenged the said order as illegal and void. He was not given an opportunity to de=fend his rights. Undue reliance was placed upon the school certificate purporting to be of the appellant. If this were the position, an enquiry was essential in order to see that whether the appellant did loin the school and if so whether his natural guardian i.e. his father accompanied him at that time or not. Respondents denied the claim and stated that since he was under age, hi; services were terminated. We have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the Special Government Pleader. It is no denying the fact that birth certificate or school leaving certificate if produced from proper custody and entered in a proper way at the behest of a natural guardian, has got preference over the opinion of the doctor but in the instant case no enquiry was conducted in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to defend his right. He was condemned unheard. (.in the basis of the above, we have got no alternative but to accept the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. We remand the case to the respondents with the direction to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law. He is entitled to all the back AA./130/Sr. N Case remanded.