2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAJID SAEED CHOHAN Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members |
| Parties | SAJID SAEED CHOHAN Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 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: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAJID SAEED CHOHAN Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asmat Kamal Khan for Appellant.
- Kh. Abdul Rasheed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3(1)(b), 5 & 6
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Dismissal from service on allegation of misconduct
Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him show-cause notice on allegation that he had submitted a forged Intermediate Certificate showing that he had passed the Examination
Employee had conceded that Intermediate Certificate produced by him was forged one; contention of appellant, however, was that since he had not taken any advantage on basis of said forged certificate, he could not be dismissed from service
Contention was repelled, because he having committed a serious misconduct in submitting a forged certificate before his employer, it was immaterial as to whether or not any advantage had been taken by him on said certificate
Employee having knowingly produced a false certificate before the employer, his act could not be condoned
Employee having committed a criminal act, his such behaviour was not that of a. gentleman
Appeal filed by employee against order of his dismissal from service, otherwise being barred by time, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).
Appellant Sajid Saeed Chohan was an Area Manager in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. It appears from the record that he had submitted a tampered photostat certificate bearing No.6788 with Roll No.2211 to the respondents, showing that he had passed the Intermediate Examination held in spring 1984. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 5-9-2000. As a consequence of this notice he was dismissed from service vide letter dated 11-10-2000. It is the legality and validity of this order which has been challenged by him in his present appeal.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had committed a criminal offence by submitting a forged Intermediate certificate and it was for that reason that the impugned order was passed against him. During the course of arguments a legal objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal is time-barred.
3. The impugned order was passed on 11-10-2000. The departmental appeal was filed on 7-11-2000 but the .present appeal was filed on 11-5-2001. It was thus, not filed within the statutory period of limitation. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. We accordingly sustain the legal objection raised by the respondents and hold that the appeal is time-barred.
4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Intermediate certificate produced by the appellant was forged. The record shows that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education had also reported that the certificate was forged. However, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant had not taken any advantage on the basis of the forged certificate, therefore, he could not be dismissed from service: We do not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant had committed a serious misconduct in submitting a forged certificate before his employer. It is immaterial as to whether or not any advantage had been taken by him on that certificate. The fact remains that the appellant had knowingly produced a false certificate before the respondents. His this act cannot be condoned. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had committed a criminal act and his behaviour was not that of a gentleman.
5. For the above reason we hold that the appeal is time-barred and is also without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./151/FST Appeal dismissed.