1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MEER ZAMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 3 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal AJ&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | MEER ZAMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1.977 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1.977, (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal AJ&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MEER ZAMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdus Samad.for Appellant.
- Mushtaq Farooq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 2 (1) (c)
Authority also acting as Authorized Officer
Validity-- Functions of Authority and that of Authorised Officer were although different in nature and distinguishable, yet Authority could also function as Authorised Officer in cases where designated Authorised Officer was not available to carry on his job
Authority having been empowered to act as Authorized Officer, no objection could be taken thereto.
S. 4
Appeal before Service Tribunal was required to be brought after thirty days from the date of final order passed on departmental appeal but same was filed after a lapse of one year from the date of appellate order
Appeal was thus, time-barred. AIR 1927 Lahore 186 ref.
Ss. 4 & 5
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Azad Jammu and Kashmit Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, R.2 (1)(c)
Natural justice, principles of
Contention that R.2(1)(c), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, authorizing Authority to act also as an Authorised Officer in addition to his own duties, being against principles of natural justice, was a bad rule of law and as such required to be struck down
Service Tribunal being creation of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 which was a Special Act, had no power beyond those contained in the Act itself
Service Tribunal thus, had no powers to strike down any rule of law deemed to be violating principles of natural justice.
R. 2
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, S. 4
Chance of personal hearing provided to civil servant instead of show-cause notice-- Validity
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, did not provide for supply of a copy of inquiry report to civil servant and instead of show-cause notice personal hearing had been provided to him
Civil servant having been provided chance of personal - hearing by Authority, no violation of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977, had taken place
Penalty awarded to civil servant on proof of his misconduct, was upheld in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975
S. 4
Appeal before Service Tribunal was required to be brought after thirty days from the date of final order passed on departmental appeal but same was filed after a lapse of one year from the date of appellate order
Appeal was thus, time-barred. AIR 1927 Lahore 186 ref. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975
Ss. 4 & 5
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Azad Jammu and Kashmit Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, R.2 (1)(c)
Natural justice, principles of
Contention that R.2(1)(c), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, authorizing Authority to act also as an Authorised Officer in addition to his own duties, being against principles of natural justice, was a bad rule of law and as such required to be struck down
Service Tribunal being creation of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 which was a Special Act, had no power beyond those contained in the Act itself
Service Tribunal thus, had no powers to strike down any rule of law deemed to be violating principles of natural justice. (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1.977
R. 2
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, S. 4
Chance of personal hearing provided to civil servant instead of show-cause notice-- Validity
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, did not provide for supply of a copy of inquiry report to civil servant and instead of show-cause notice personal hearing had been provided to him
Civil servant having been provided chance of personal - hearing by Authority, no violation of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977, had taken place
Penalty awarded to civil servant on proof of his misconduct, was upheld in appeal. Kh. Abdus Samad.for Appellant. Mushtaq Farooq for Respondents.