1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
TARIQ BASHIR HASHMI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRF, P.A.C., KAMRA and 3 others
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Raza Khan and Nasim Sabir Syed, Members |
| Parties | TARIQ BASHIR HASHMI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRF, P.A.C., KAMRA and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Raza Khan and Nasim Sabir Syed, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (TARIQ BASHIR HASHMI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRF, P.A.C., KAMRA and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim for Appellant.
- Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th July, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Service of civil servant was terminated without serving him with any show-cause notice on ground of poor record during probationary period
Termination of service of civil servant without first serving him any show-cause notice was illegal as no proper procedure had been adopted in the case
Order terminating service of civil servant was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with back benefits. PLD 1974 SC 393; 1991 SCMR 400; 1994 SCMR 2232 and Iqbal Wasti v. Collector Customs 1987 PLC (C.S.) 756 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(i) 10-1-1995 (till the date of his termination from service) (ii) 7-7-1994 to I-8-1994 (iii) 2-12-1994 to 5-12-1994 It was brought to our notice that the appellant remained absent for 60 days in a period of one and a half years and his probationary period was extended with a warning to him, which means that there was no possibility .of any malice towards the appellant.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant claimed that the order passed suffers from serious infirmities and was a definite case of malice. The arguments given by him were as under:-- (i) No show-cause notice was given to the appellant before termination of service which is illegal as held in the case of Muhammad Siddiq Chaudhry cited as PLD 1974 SC 393 in which it has been held that the issuance of show cause is a must. In support thereof another case was quoted cited 1991 SCMR400 supported by another one cited as 1994 S R. 2232. In all these cases it was held that principle of natural justice cannot be violated. (ii) Removal from service is not only a stigma but is a misfortune for the person whose services have been terminated. It has been held in Iqbal Wasti v. Collector Customs 1987 PLC (C.S) 756 that termination simpliciter is unlawful and mala fide. Here in this case it is also simpliciter and so unlawful
4. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in_1994_SCMR 2232 has also held that even during probationary period roper legal procedure had to be adopted which has not been done in this case.
5. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and are of the view that the orders passed for the termination are illegal and mala fide. More particularly so because legal procedure to be adopted has not been followed.
6. As a result the appellant is ordered to be reinstated with back benefits from the date he was terminated and the order of termination is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./113/Sr.F Appeal allowed