1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUNIR AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD and another |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUNIR AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazle Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1998
- 2. Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents has candidly pointed out an order of this Court dated 31‑5 1995 in the case of Qazi Khalil‑ur‑Rehman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 95/1, to 97/L of 1994. The above petitions were converted' into appeal and the cases were remanded to the Service Tribunal with the direction to decide the matters after fresh hearing of their counsel on the ground that the learned Chairman while recording his opinion in support of one of the two Members of the Original Bench of the Service Tribunal had not heard the petitioners. In the present case, it appears that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal did not issue any notice to the appellant nor to the respondent before recording his above opinion. In this view of the matter, the above judgment of this Court in all four is applicable to the case in hand as has fairly and candidly submitted by Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑2‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No. 85(L) of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Appeal filed by civil servant was decided by majority judgment passed by Tribunal‑‑‑Chairman of Service Tribunal while recording his opinion in support of one of the two members of the original Bench of Tribunal, had not issued any notice to parties‑‑‑Such judgment was set aside and case was remanded to be decided by the Tribunal afresh after hearing parties. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑‑This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against majority judgment dated 22‑2‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 285(L) of 1991 filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalty of his removal from service under the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 dismissing the same by the above majority view. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Chief Inspector of Production in Loco Shop Moghalpura, was a civil servant or a workman.
2. Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents has candidly pointed out an order of this Court dated 31‑5 1995 in the case of Qazi Khalil‑ur‑Rehman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 95/1, to 97/L of 1994. The above petitions were converted' into appeal and the cases were remanded to the Service Tribunal with the direction to decide the matters after fresh hearing of their counsel on the ground that the learned Chairman while recording his opinion in support of one of the two Members of the Original Bench of the Service Tribunal had not heard the petitioners. In the present case, it appears that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal did not issue any notice to the appellant nor to the respondent before recording his above opinion. In this view of the matter, the above judgment of this Court in all four is applicable to the case in hand as has fairly and candidly submitted by Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded. There shall be no order as to costs.