2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ASLAM PERVAIZ SOOMRO Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTIONS,
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch, Members |
| Parties | ASLAM PERVAIZ SOOMRO Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTIONS, |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ASLAM PERVAIZ SOOMRO Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTIONS,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghouri for Appellant.
- Niaz A. Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 2002.
- 4. Mr. Niaz A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent has admitted the fact that the appellant was sent, on deputation under the orders of Federal Government. At the same time, he has contended that he was ordered to repatriate, but he did not join the respondent in 1997 and in case the order of his repatriation was withdrawn by respondent No.6, the same was not within the knowledge of respondent. He has contended that in case the remittance was being made, it would not validate the order, which expired in 1997. He has contended that the contention of learned counsel, that executive order cannot be given retrospective effect is, not tenable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1998 PLC 500, as period from which the particular incumbent was absent was to be taken into consideration and not the date of order. Lastly he has contended that the authorities cited by the learned counsel for appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.
- 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the, entire appeal file and so also the authorities cited by the respective advocates.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Rr.3, 4 & 6‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Termination of service on ground of absence from duty‑‑‑Transfer on deputation‑‑ Repatriation‑‑‑Civil servant serving as Junior Officer was transferred on deputation for three years where he remained serving and his monthly contributions/salary etc., were regularly being remitted to parent Department‑‑‑After expiry of period of three years of deputation, borrowing Department passed order of repatriation of civil servant, but soon after that repatriating/relieving order was withdrawn by borrowing Department and civil servant due to withdrawal of relieving order remained serving in borrowing Department As servant, after expiry of three years of his deputation, could not rejoin parent Department his services were terminates without issuing him show‑cause notice and without making any inquiry front borrowing Department about absence of civil servant despite parent Department had been receiving monthly contribution of extended period‑‑ Repatriation order passed by borrowing Department was within knowledge of parent Department, but order withdrawing repatriation/relieving order was not within its knowledge because it was not communicated to the parent Department‑‑‑Even if order withdrawing repatriation was not communicated by borrowing Department to parent Department, it was duty of civil servant to inform parent Department about it and it was also duty of parent Department to inquire about civil servant when he did not join parent Department‑‑‑Parent Department had acted in unusual hasty manner in terminating services of civil servant straightaway without issuing show‑cause notice and without making inquiry‑‑‑Order terminating services of civil servant, in circumstances, could not sustain and same was set aside with direction to reinstate civil servant in service. 1999 PLC (C.S.) 655; 1996 SCMR 201, 2002 PLC (C.S.) 843: 2001 SCMR 300 and 1998 PLC 500 ref.
Judgment & Decree
"In pursuance of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation's Relieving Order No.Admn/SC/Estt/1124/1197, dated 22‑11‑1997, Mr. Aslam Pervaiz Soomro, Junior Officer (Personal No.148202) R.M.H.D., Pakistan Steel, Ministry of Industries & Production, Government of Pakistan, is hereby repatriated to his parent department, the Pakistan Steel, Karachi, with immediate effect." After the issuance of the said repatriation order, the respondent No.6 withdrew the relieving order of the respondent on 20‑1‑1998. This order is also reproduced hereunder:‑‑ No. Admn/SC/Estt‑721998 dated 20‑1‑1998 SUB: RELIEVING ORDER. Relieving order No.Admn/SC/Estt‑1124/1997, dated 22‑11‑1997 of Mr. Aslam Pervaiz Soomro, is hereby withdrawn. (sd). DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION K.M.C. MR. ASLAM PERVAIZ SOOMRO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND K. M. C. Copy for information and necessary action:‑‑ (1) Senior Director Land K.M.C. (2) Director Finance K.M.C. (3) Director Computer K.M.C. (4) Assistant Director LFA K.M.C. DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION K.M.C. Copy to Section Officer‑X, Services & General Administration Department, Government of Sindh, for information. It is to kindly extend his deputation period for further two years. DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION K.M.C. Copy to Deputy Coordinator (Operation‑1) to the Senior Minister for Local Government and Katchi Abadis Department, Government of Sindh, for information. DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION K.M.C. It is pertinent to bring it on record that repatriation order dated 2‑12‑1997 as within the knowledge of respondent No.2. but the second order dated 20‑1‑1998 whereby his repatriation was withdrawn was not communicated to respondent No.2. In this regard we observe that it was lethargy on the part of le borrowing department due to which they could not intimate the respondent No.2 about the withdrawal of the repatriation order and in case it was not done by the borrowing department then it was also the duty of the appellant to have informed his parent department that his repatriation order has been withdrawn. It is, however, surprising that the respondent No.2 went on receiving the remittances till December, 1998, which payment was sent by cheque drawn on H.B.L., K.M.C. Branch, as is evident from letter dated 7‑1‑1999 (page 51 Annexure A/11 available on file), then too, ignorance was shown by respondent No.2 about the whereabouts of the appellant. In case respondent No.6 or even respondent No.4 on account of their lethargic attitude had not intimated about the withdrawal of the repatriation order, then it was also the duty of respondent No.2 to have made inquiry about the appellant when he did not join his parent department in spite of the fact that remittances were being received.
8. Coming to other merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the respondent No.2 had acted in unusual hasty manner and instead of issuing him show‑cause notice, straightaway the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority in violation of rule 6.33 of Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations. It is also pertinent to bring it on record that when the appellant approached the respondents for recalling the termination order on production of the material documents including the service certificate, his case was not considered. Even the borrowing department, respondent No.4, had also requested the responded No.2 for withdrawal of the termination letter, on which the appellant was given Personal hearing and a second order was passed on 11‑5‑1999, therefore, the appellant again filed departmental appeal on 18‑5‑1999, which met with a rejection order dated 25‑8‑1999 whereafter the present appeal was filed on 29‑9‑1999. No doubt, the respondents have not taken this plea, but we feel it our duty to make such mention. Even otherwise, in case of absence of the appellant was treated by the respondent to be misconduct, then the respondent No.2 was legally bound to give such show‑cause notice to the appellant, which has not been done in this case and straightaway termination order has been issued without any just cause particularly when the amount of deduction was being received by them through cheques till December, 1998. This action on the part of the respondent No.2 speaks of unusual haste, and a corporation of such a repute is not expected to pass such orders, which directly hit the career of a person like the present appellant. Thus, with great concern; we observe that such type of hasty act will not be repeated in future.
9. In view of the above discussion, the order of termination passed by he respondent No.2 dated 4‑1‑1999 and so also the appellate order dated 11‑5‑1999 are not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, we, while allowing she appeal, set aside both the orders dated 4‑1‑1999 and 11‑5‑1999 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service on the same post from which he was terminated with all back‑benefits, provided the appellant files an affidavit with solid proof that he did not work for gain anywhere else during this period.
10. In the circumstances of the case, there will be on order as to costs. Patties concerned be informed accordingly. H.B.T./155/FST Appeal allowed.