PLD 1990 Supreme Court 712 (PLP)
ABDUL RAUF‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others‑ ‑Respondents
| Citation | PLD 1990 Supreme Court 712 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ Ss.2(b) & 4 ‑‑‑ Civil servant ‑‑‑ Definition ‑‑‑ Appeal ‑‑‑ Two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against civil servant ‑‑‑ Authority, in respect of one proceedings by an order dated 18‑7‑1987 directed that civil servant should be compulsorily retired from service and as a result of the second proceedings by an order dated 6‑1‑1988 ordered his dismissal from service ‑‑‑ Service Tribunal, on appeal by the civil servant took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18‑7‑1987, he had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from that date of the order, consequently appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Service Tribunal‑‑‑ .Hold" order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the person was still a civil servant, therefore, Service Tribunal could not decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant‑‑"Civil servant includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province and definition was wide enough to cover the case of such a civil servant.‑‑ Words and phrases. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | ABDUL RAUF‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others‑ ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1990 Supreme Court 712 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 1990 Supreme Court 712 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ Ss.2(b) & 4 ‑‑‑ Civil servant ‑‑‑ Definition ‑‑‑ Appeal ‑‑‑ Two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against civil servant ‑‑‑ Authority, in respect of one proceedings by an order dated 18‑7‑1987 directed that civil servant should be compulsorily retired from service and as a result of the second proceedings by an order dated 6‑1‑1988 ordered his dismissal from service ‑‑‑ Service Tribunal, on appeal by the civil servant took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18‑7‑1987, he had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from that date of the order, consequently appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Service Tribunal‑‑‑ .Hold" order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the person was still a civil servant, therefore, Service Tribunal could not decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant‑‑"Civil servant includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province and definition was wide enough to cover the case of such a civil servant.‑‑ Words and phrases. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PLD 1990 Supreme Court 712 (PLP) (ABDUL RAUF‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others‑ ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 21st March, 1990
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 24‑6‑1989, passed in Appeal No .345/965 of 1988). ‑‑‑ Ss.2(b) & 4 ‑‑‑ Civil servant ‑‑‑ Definition ‑‑‑ Appeal ‑‑‑ Two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against civil servant ‑‑‑ Authority, in respect of one proceedings by an order dated 18‑7‑1987 directed that civil servant should be compulsorily retired from service and as a result of the second proceedings by an order dated 6‑1‑1988 ordered his dismissal from service ‑‑‑ Service Tribunal, on appeal by the civil servant took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18‑7‑1987, he had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from that date of the order, consequently appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Service Tribunal‑‑‑ .Hold" order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the person was still a civil servant, therefore, Service Tribunal could not decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant‑‑"Civil servant includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province and definition was wide enough to cover the case of such a civil servant.‑‑ [Words and phrases]. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑ ‑The petitioner was serving as Nazir/Ahlmad in the office of the district and Sessions Judge, Sargodha. On allegations of misconduct two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Consequent upon one of the proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 18‑7‑1987 directed that he should compulsorily be retired from service. As a result of the second proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge, by an order dated 6‑1‑1988, dismissed him from service. He filed departmental appeals against both orders before the High Court. The appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected while no order was passed in respect of the other appeal. He then filed an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The learned Tribunal took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18‑7‑1987 the petitioner had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal as incompetent.
3. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel both for the petitioner and the respondents. Mr. Abdul Majid Sheikh who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has frankly conceded that he is unable to support the view expressed by the learned Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the petitioner was still a civil servant. That being so, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant. It may be mentioned that the definition of "civil servant", as set out in section 2(b), the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the Province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province. This definition is wide enough to cover the case of the petitioner.
5. For the reasons stated above, we would convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The appeal of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal shall be treated as still pending and disposed of in accordance with law. M.BA./A‑739/S Appeal accepted