SCMR 1996

1996SCMR315 (PLP)

Mir NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary, Ministry of

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition of Special Leave to Appeal No. 196/1, of 1995, decided on 11th
Honorable Judges
Saad Snood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1996SCMR315 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saad Snood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ
Parties Mir NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary, Ministry of
Primary Law Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR315 (PLP)?

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 1996SCMR315 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Snood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR315 (PLP) (Mir NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary, Ministry of). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑

Representation

  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitionor.
  • 5. While approving of this cogent reasoning of the learned Service Tribunal, we would like to add that the petitioner has to suffer penalty for misconduct on his part, and those working with him have to face consequences of their respective lapses. It was for the departmental authorities to deal with each official appropriately keeping in view the nature of his shortcoming; and if the fault of any of them did not warrant his/her removal from service, the petitioner cannot justifiably urge that his removal from service should also be set aside. We, therefore, see no force in the plea of discrimination advanced by his learned counsel.

Headnotes / Summary

December, 1995. (On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20‑12‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 249(1,)/94). ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal‑‑ Misconduct‑‑‑ Removal from service on departmental penalties‑‑‑Civil servant was acquitted from criminal case which was registered against him for embezzlement of specified amount‑‑‑Civil servant's plea before Service Tribunal against his dismissal that he having been acquitted from criminal charge, therefore, order of his removal from service, which was passed on basis of departmental proceedings, also deserved to be set aside, was repelled‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings having been taken separately against civil servant, his acquittal in criminal case would not justify setting aside of punishment awarded to him in consequence of departmental proceedings‑‑‑Departmental action against civil servant having been initiated independently of criminal case registered against him, his success in criminal case would not nullify outcome of departmental action‑‑ Removal of civil servant, which was ordered as result of departmental proceedings, could not be set aside on the score of his acquittal in criminal proceedings‑‑‑Civil servant's plea that other persons working with him were found guilty of negligence but they were not removed from service and, therefore, action taken against him viz. removal from service was discriminatory in nature‑‑‑Such plea was rightly rejected by Service Tribunal on the ground that other officials were proceeded against only for inefficiency while civil servant was proceeded against for misconduct‑‑‑No force in plea of discrimination advanced by civil servant thus was found‑‑‑Order of Service Tribunal did not call for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitionor.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been made by Mir Nawaz Khan. It was alleged that while posted as Assistant National Savings Officer, National Savings Centre, Multan Road, Lahore, he fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.40,

321. Usual enquiry was, therefore, held against him and as the charge against him was proved, he was removed from service. On this, after exhausting departmental remedies, he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was also dismissed on 20th December, 1994. Now, he has made this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner on the, said charge but he was acquitted. It was, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that the order of his removal from service, which was passed on the basis of departmental proceedings, also deserved to be set aside.

3. What happened in the present case was that departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings were taken out separately against the petitioner. His acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, does not justify the setting aside of the punishment .awarded to him in consequence of the departmental proceedings. If departmental proceedings had been taken out on the basis of his conviction in the criminal case, and his conviction had ultimately been set aside by any forum higher than the one which had convicted him, the position would have been different. Since the departmental action against the petitioner was initiated indenendently of the criminal case, registered against him, his success in the criminal case would not nullify the outcome of the departmental action. In this view of the matter, removal of the petitioner, which was ordered as a result of the departmental proceedings, cannot be set aside on the score of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings.

4. Another argument raised, by the learned counsel was that Officer Incharge of the said National Savings Centre, namely, Mrs. Lubna Aftab and some other members of the staff employed at the above Centre were found guilty of negligence qua the handling of the amount in question but they were not removed from service. According to the learned counsel, therefore, disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was discriminatory in nature. This plea was also raised before the learned Service Tribunal but .was rejected with the following observations:‑‑ "The record shows that the penalty awarded against the Officer Incharge of the Centre Mrs. Lubna Aftab and other members of the staff was proportionate to their involvement and no discrimination has been meted out to the appellant who is proved to have embezzled various amounts from the accounts of Mst. Asghari Begum, Mst. Ameer Begum and Muhammad Sarwar. Mrs. Lubna Aftab and other members of the staff were not charged for misappropriation or embezzlement. Even the appellant has not attributed anything to these officials. They were proceeded against only for inefficiency and have been punished under the rules, keeping in view the merits of each."

5. While approving of this cogent reasoning of the learned Service Tribunal, we would like to add that the petitioner has to suffer penalty for misconduct on his part, and those working with him have to face consequences of their respective lapses. It was for the departmental authorities to deal with each official appropriately keeping in view the nature of his shortcoming; and if the fault of any of them did not warrant his/her removal from service, the petitioner cannot justifiably urge that his removal from service should also be set aside. We, therefore, see no force in the plea of discrimination advanced by his learned counsel.

5. To our minds, order of the learned Service Tribunal against the petitioner does not call for any interference. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave to the petitioner to appeal against the said order and dismiss his petition. AA./N‑456/S Leave reused.