1988 PLP 1316 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1316 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1316 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1316 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1316 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian M. Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
- 5. We have heard Mian M. Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General and Bashir Hussain respondent in person.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order‑ of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 19‑11‑1986, passed in Appeal No.43 of 1986). (a) North‑West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Misconduct‑ Removal from service‑‑Finding of inefficiency‑‑Consequence of‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether after rendering a finding of inefficiency against respondent, Service Tribunal, could have set aside the order impugned before it in its entirety or the proper course was to reduce the punishment. (b) North‑West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ ‑‑‑R..5‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4‑‑Misconduct‑‑Removal from service‑‑Violation of mandatory provisions of Rules‑‑Procedural defects in proceedings conducted‑ Consequence of‑‑Respondent guilty of misconduct removed from service‑‑On appeal, Service Tribunal, despite finding of inefficiency against respondent, accepted his appeal due to procedural defects in proceedings conducted against him and ordered his re‑instatement with full back benefits‑‑Order impugned‑‑Held, proceedings against respondent being in violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, order of removal from service could not be maintained‑‑Appeal allowed, order of Service Tribunal and removal from service set aside and case remanded to Authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Mian M. Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is an appeal by leave from the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 19‑11‑1986, whereby the appeal of Bashir Hussain respondent was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. Bashir Hussain respondent was a Civil Nazir in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Malakand at Batkhela. On 26‑11‑1985 the Senior Civil Judge checked the registers of Nazarat in the presence of the respondent and found that during his tenure of service there was a defalcation of an amount of Rs.28,
892. On the basis of the above, an explanation was called for from the respondent, to which a reply was submitted. The Senior Civil Judge put him on notice to deposit the entire amount by 30‑11‑1985 in the Government Treasury, otherwise necessary action would be taken against him. Last notice was given on 7‑12‑1985 for deposit of the outstanding "Sherrif Petty" amount. The respondent then produced receipts for payment of Rs.20,077 duly attested by the Senior Civil Judges and deposited the remaining amount of Rs.8,815 which according to him was lying with him.
3. Bashir Hussain was, however, charge‑sheeted for misconduct on 16‑2‑1986 by the Senior Civil Judge and a reply to the charge‑sheet was submitted by him on 23‑2‑1986 and then another show‑cause notice was issued to him on 8‑3‑1986. After considering the reply of the respondent, the Senior Civil Judge on 16‑3‑1986 ordered the removal of the respondent from service. The appeal of Bashir Hussain from the above order was dismissed by the Distriot and Sessions Judge on 15‑7‑1986. The respondent then moved the Service Tribunal which resulted in the impugned order.
4. Leave in this case was granted to examine whether after rendering a finding of inefficiency against the respondent the Service Tribunal could have set aside the order impugned before it in its entirety or the proper course was to reduce the punishment.
5. We have heard Mian M. Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General and Bashir Hussain respondent in person.
6. The Service Tribunal in its order has highlighted the shortcomings in the Nazarat Betkhela Office and also the procedural defects in proceedings conducted against the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant was pointedly asked if he can defend the order of removal of the respondent in the light of the findings of the Tribunal but he was absolutely unable to put up a convincing defence. As per record, obviously the whole exercise undertaken by the Senior Civil Judge in proceedings against the respondent is in violation of rule 5 of the N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which is mandatory in nature. This being the legal position, the order of the Senior Civil Judge, dated C 16‑3‑1986, cannot be maintained.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order impugned before us and that of the Senior Civil Judge, dated 16‑3‑1986, are set aside and the case is remanded to the Authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. M.I./S‑147/S Order accordingly.