2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SECRETARY (FUNDS) ECONOMIC ADVISOR Versus IMTIAZ MEHMOOD and others
| Citation | 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY (FUNDS) ECONOMIC ADVISOR Versus IMTIAZ MEHMOOD and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SECRETARY (FUNDS) ECONOMIC ADVISOR Versus IMTIAZ MEHMOOD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faisal Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Farooq Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment, dated 2-2-2008 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2964 of 2006).
Ss. 3, 5 & 10
Non-affording of opportunity of hearing to appellant before awarding him such punishment
Opportunity of hearing would include providing of relevant record to appellant for preparing defence and cross-examination
Impugned order could not withstand test of judicial scrutiny
Service Tribunal set aside impugned order, reinstated appellant into service and directed authority to appoint new Inquiry Officer for holding de novo inquiry and provide copies of documents demanded by appellant.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.
This petition, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed against the judgment, dated 20-2-2008, whereby service appeal, filed by respondent No.1 Imtiaz Mehmood, was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration section 10 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, which is ultra vires of the Constitution; that respondent No.1, is neither a Government servant nor a civil servant, as notified by the Punjab Government; that the Punjab Government Benevolent Fund Board has no statutory rules, therefore, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable in the eyes of law; that terms and conditions of service of respondent No.1 are not regulated by a statute or statutory rules, therefore, relationship of master and servant exists between the parties. Therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the entire material available on record. The learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal of respondent No.1 Imtiaz Mehmood, observed as under:
"We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing which includes provisions of record for preparation of cross-examination and defence. The impugned order, therefore, could not sustain in the eye of law and withstand the test of judicial scrutiny and thus, the same is liable to be set aside, though departmental disciplinary action qua the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and a de novo enquiry should be ordered by appointment of an Enquiry Officer other than the one who had already conducted the enquiry and it should be ensured that copies of documents demanded by the appellant are provided to him before the commencement of enquiry." Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated into service with direction to appoint new Inquiry Officer for holding de novo inquiry. But the respondent was not reinstated into service. The impugned judgment of learned Service Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment justifying interference by this Court. No substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. S.A.K./S-22/SC Leave refused.