2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. MULAZIM HUSSAIN SUMRO Versus SPECIAL SECRETARY HEALTH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdus Sattar Asghar, J |
| Parties | Dr. MULAZIM HUSSAIN SUMRO Versus SPECIAL SECRETARY HEALTH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Employees' Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Employees' Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Abdus Sattar Asghar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. MULAZIM HUSSAIN SUMRO Versus SPECIAL SECRETARY HEALTH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(4)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Civil servant was aggrieved of show-cause notice issued to him by competent authority on the basis of inquiry report
Notice in question was issued in accordance with law in exercise of lawful authority under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006
Matter pertained to terms and conditions of service and plea of mala fide being a question of fact not sufficiently substantiated with any speck of material on the record could not be looked into by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction at such stage
No decision adverse to petitioner was passed in the show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice in question
Object of show-cause notice was to provide an opportunity to petitioner to explain and produce his defence before Hearing Officer following the rule of audi alteram partem
Issuance of show-cause notice did not amount to infringement of any statutory or secured right of petitioner, therefore, the same could not be called in question through invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.
Dr. Mulazim Hussain Sumro, being aggrieved of show-cause notice dated 11-5-2011 issued by Dr. Muhammad Sarni Akhtar Processor (BS-20) Nishtar Medical College Multan/respondent No.2, the Inquiry Officer, has called it in question on the ground that the same is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority.
2. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.
3. The record reveals that by orders of the competent authority an inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of professional irregularities and misconduct was ordered against Dr. Mulazim Hussain Sumro/petitioner vide order dated 23-4-2010 passed by Special Secretary (Health), Government of the Punjab. On submission of report of the Inquiry Officer that charges have been proved against the petitioner, Special Secretary (Health) Government of the Punjab issued impugned show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice dated 11-5-2011 under section 13(4) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 whereby he is called upon to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice as to why the penalties mentioned in the notice be not imposed upon him. He is also offered opportunity of personal hearing and directed to appear before the Execution District Officer (Health), Multan/Hearing Officer appointed by the competent authority and further allowed to submit his additional defence in writing before the Hearing Officer on the date to be communicated by the Hearing Officer.
4. Bare perusal of the impugned show-cause notice transpires that the same is issued in accordance with the law in exercise of lawful authority under the PEEDA Act, 2006. Certainly the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the service. Plea of mala fide being a question of fact not sufficiently substantiated with any speck of material on the record cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. No decision adverse to the petitioner is passed in the impugned show-cause-cum personal hearing notice. It is pertinent to mention that object of show-cause notice is to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to explain and produce his defence before the Hearing Officer following the rule of audi alteram partem. It does not amount to infringement of any statutory or secured right of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be called in question through invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Instant writ petition being pre-mature is not maintainable and thus dismissed in limine. M.H./M-892/L Petition dismissed.