2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MIRZA Versus DY. D.S. PASSENGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MIRZA Versus DY. D.S. PASSENGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MIRZA Versus DY. D.S. PASSENGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr.3(b) & 4(1)(b)(i)(iv)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Conversion into reversion of grade‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him show‑cause notice on serious allegation of misconduct‑‑‑Penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon employee was subsequently converted into reversion as TCR Grade‑I for a period of three years‑‑ Record had established that show‑cause notice was never served upon the employee‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself‑‑‑Serious charges of misconduct had been levelled against the employee, but no inquiry was held against him to determine the true facts‑-‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were not followed by the Competent Authority as well as by the Authorized Officer inasmuch as even show‑cause notice was not served upon the employee‑‑‑Entire proceedings against the employee being illegal order passed against him was set aside. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Counsel for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).‑‑‑Appellant Muhammad Nawaz Mirza joined Pakistan Railways on 21‑8‑1967 as Lower Division Clerk: He was approved for promotion as Head Ticket Inspector and assigned the duties of that post on 29‑5‑1998. On 16‑11‑1999 a show cause notice was issued to him wherein serious allegations of misconduct were levelled against him. It appears that the appellant did not file reply to the show‑cause notice and as a consequence thereof he was dismissed from service vide order dated 27‑11‑1999. Against his dismissal he filed a departmental appeal on 7‑12‑1999 which was partly accepted by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 27‑1‑2000. The penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was converted into reversion as TCR Grade -I fox a period of three years. This penalty of reversion has be6n challenged by the appellant through his present appeal filed under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. He has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 27‑1‑2000.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that the appellant had committed serious misconduct, therefore, he was proceeded against strictly in accordance with the rules and awarded penalty which he deserved.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that show‑cause notice dated 16‑11‑1999 was never served upon the appellant, therefore, he could not file his defence reply. According to the learned counsel no regular inquiry was held against the appellant and he was condemned unheard.
5. From the record it is established that show‑cause notice was never served upon the appellant. The appellant was thus deprived of an opportunity to defend himself. Serious charges of misconduct had been reveled against him but no inquiry was held against him to determine the true facts. We are of the view that E&D Rules were not followed by the Competent Authority as well as by the Authorized Officer inasmuch as even the show‑cause notice was not served upon the appellant. Thus the A entire proceedings taken against the appellant are illegal.
6. For the above reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The respondents may, if they so desire, initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the prescribed rules.
7. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, Parties be informed. H.B.T./16/FST Appeal accepted.