2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AHMAD HUSSAIN DAR Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | AHMAD HUSSAIN DAR Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
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 2008 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: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AHMAD HUSSAIN DAR Versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Appellant.
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 3, 4(1)(b)(ii), 5, 6 & 7
Service Tribunals. Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Compulsory retirement from service
Appellant was compulsorily retired from service on allegations that he had acquired and possessed property, disproportionate to his known resources of income and that he had purchased movable/immovable property without permission of the Competent Authority
Appellant was also alleged to be living beyond his ostensible means of income
No formal inquiry had been held against appellant in spite of his request in that behalf
Considering the nature of allegations against appellant, non-holding of inquiry had caused serious prejudice to him
When serious allegations were levelled against appellant which were controverted by him, formal inquiry had become mandatory
Appellant had made an endeavour to explain his resources which could be determined only through a formal inquiry and not in any other manner
Even otherwise penalty of compulsory retirement did not reconcile with the serious charges levelled against appellant
Such aspect of case would be duly considered by competent Authority depending upon the outcome of formal inquiry
Order of compulsory retirement from service passed against appellant was set aside with direction that a formal inquiry would be held against appellant in accordance with rules and matter would be decided by Competent Authority within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).
Appellant Ahmad Hussain Dar was a Commercial Assistant in the Revenue Office, Nankana Division under Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited. He was served with a letter of explanation dated 8-4-2000 in which it was alleged that he had acquired and possessed property worth lacs of rupees, disproportionate to his known resources of income and that he had purchased movable/immovable property without the permission of the competent Authority. It was also alleged that he was living beyond his ostensible means of income. He was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 15-6-2000. His departmental appeal dated 12-8-2000 was not responded. It is prayed by him in his present appeal filed under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that the impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back-benefits.
2. It is maintained by the appellant that no formal inquiry had been held against him in spite of his request in that behalf. It is further maintained by him that his family had the resources enabling him to purchase and acquire property, movable as well as immovable.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had retired from service after observance of all the legal formalities.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Very serious charges had been levelled against the appellant but no inquiry was held against him. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-holding of inquiry had caused serious prejudice to the appellant. It is an established law that when serious allegation are levelled against a Civil Servant, which are controverted by him, formal inquiry becomes mandatory. In the present case the appellant had made an endeavour to explain his resources. His resources could be determined only through a formal inquiry and not in any other manner. In the circumstances we hold that a proper procedure was not adopted by the respondents in dealing with the appellant.
6. Even otherwise the penalty of compulsory retirement does not reconcile with the serious charges levelled against the appellant. This aspect of the case shall be duly considered by the Competent Authority depending upon the outcome of formal inquiry which is being ordered by us.
7. For the above reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. We direct that a formal inquiry shall be held against the appellant in accordance with the rules. The matter shall then be decided by the Competent Authority. The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the respondents.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./87/FST Appeal accepted.