1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mian MUHAMDAD RAFIQUE Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE, SARAI ALAMGIR and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMDAD RAFIQUE Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE, SARAI ALAMGIR and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981, (a) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981, (a) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981 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 Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mian MUHAMDAD RAFIQUE Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE, SARAI ALAMGIR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl. A.-G. with Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
R.2 (c) (i)
Punjab Local Councils (Business) Rules, 1980, R.9 -- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Validity-- Chairman Local Council appointing an authorised officer which he was not competent to do
Provisions of R.2(c)(i), Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, would show that authorised officer means Chairman Local Council or the officer authorised by the Local Council to perform functions of an authority
person appointed by the Chairman, however, could not act as authorised officer, therefore, proceedings conducted against local council employee by such person and his ultimate removal on basis of such proceedings were vitiated.
R.17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Removal of employee from service
Appellate Authority failing to apply its conscious mind-- Effect
Appellate authority had not applied its conscious mind while disposing of employee's appeal, for appellate order was based on erroneous assumption that petitioner was dismissed from service by the Local Council, whereas he was removed from service by the Chairman of local council and not by the Council itself
Order of removal from service being defective could not be sustained in circumstances
Order passed against employee removing him from service was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect having been passed by a person not authorised to pass the same
Employee was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith
Fresh enquiry could, however, be conducted against employee in accordance with law. Raja Muhammad Sabir for the Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981
R.2 (c) (i)
Punjab Local Councils (Business) Rules, 1980, R.9 -- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Validity-- Chairman Local Council appointing an authorised officer which he was not competent to do
Provisions of R.2(c)(i), Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, would show that authorised officer means Chairman Local Council or the officer authorised by the Local Council to perform functions of an authority
person appointed by the Chairman, however, could not act as authorised officer, therefore, proceedings conducted against local council employee by such person and his ultimate removal on basis of such proceedings were vitiated. (b) Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1981
R.17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Removal of employee from service
Appellate Authority failing to apply its conscious mind-- Effect
Appellate authority had not applied its conscious mind while disposing of employee's appeal, for appellate order was based on erroneous assumption that petitioner was dismissed from service by the Local Council, whereas he was removed from service by the Chairman of local council and not by the Council itself
Order of removal from service being defective could not be sustained in circumstances
Order passed against employee removing him from service was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect having been passed by a person not authorised to pass the same
Employee was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith
Fresh enquiry could, however, be conducted against employee in accordance with law. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Sabir for the Respondent No.
1. Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl. A.-G. with Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Respondent No.