1984 PLP 451 (SCMR)
Qazi FAIZUL HAQ-Appellant Versus N.-W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 451 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----- Art. 212(3)--N: W. F. P. Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 5-Civil services-Departmental enquiry-Order of dismissal of civil servant passed without supplying copy of enquiry report and issue of second show-cause notice-Held, violation of Rules and hence set aside.-Civil service. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Qazi FAIZUL HAQ-Appellant Versus N.-W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 451 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 451 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----- Art. 212(3)--N: W. F. P. Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 5-Civil services-Departmental enquiry-Order of dismissal of civil servant passed without supplying copy of enquiry report and issue of second show-cause notice-Held, violation of Rules and hence set aside.-Civil service. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 451 (SCMR) (Qazi FAIZUL HAQ-Appellant Versus N.-W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Amirzada Khan, Assistant Advocate-General, N.-W.. F. P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent:
- Date of hearing : 16th November, 1983.
- S. M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on‑Record for Appellant.
- Amirzada Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General, N.‑W.. F. P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent:
- As this Court had, while interpreting the rules in S. Mir Muhammad v N.‑W. F P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD1981 SC 176), held that these two requirements are necessary, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General did not 'contest the legal position and stated that the dismissal order be set aside, with the result that the disciplinary proceedings should be held to be pending from the stage the enquiry report was sent to the competent authority; and the appellant should be treated as under suspension.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 10th February, 1981/ 15th May, 1980 passed in Appeal No: 7 of 1979 by the Service Tribunal, N: W: F. P., Peshawar).
Art. 212(3)--N: W. F. P. Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 5-Civil services-Departmental enquiry-Order of dismissal of civil servant passed without supplying copy of enquiry report and issue of second show-cause notice-Held, violation of Rules and hence set aside.-[Civil service]. S. Mir Muhammad v. N: W. F. P. Government through Chief Secretary PLD 1981. SC 176.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on‑Record for Appellant. Amirzada Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General, N.‑W.. F. P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent: Date of hearing : 16th November, 1983. JUDGMEMT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.‑The appellant while serving as Extra Assistant Commissioner, Charsadda in 1978 allowed bail to Ghulam Rasool, who was charged for double murder on the basis of a, compromise‑appli cation purporting to be signed by the relations of the deceased whose statements were also recorded. Thereafter it transpired that those persons had impersonated the real relatives of the deceased, and by a false repre sentation managed to secure the bail of the murderer. An application in this behalf was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, who referred it to the appellant and the appellant thereupon lodged two complaints against the persons responsible for making the false statements. Nonetheless the appellant was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and as his reply was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was held by the Additional Commis sioner, Peshawar, who found him guilty of misconduct. The enquiry report, dated the 7th of October, 1978, containing his decision was sent to the competent authority, and on its acceptance he was dismissed from service on the 1st of January, 1979. His review application was also rejected on the 10th of January, 1979. The appellant challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal, Peshawar, and as there was a difference of opinion, it was referred to the third member; who agreed with the Chairman and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed on the 10th of February, 1981. Leave was granted to consider as whether there was any violation of the rules by the failure in not supplying the copy of the report, and the issuance of the second show‑cause notice before the decision for dismissal was taken. As this Court had, while interpreting the rules in S. Mir Muhammad v N.‑W. F P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD1981 SC 176), held that these two requirements are necessary, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General did not 'contest the legal position and stated that the dismissal order be set aside, with the result that the disciplinary proceedings should be held to be pending from the stage the enquiry report was sent to the competent authority; and the appellant should be treated as under suspension. In view of this statement, we allow the appeal and order accordingly. There would no order as to costs. S. Q. Appeal accepted.