PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NAJIB ULLAH Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, SARGODHA REGION and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Appeal No. 339/267 of 1986, decided on 16th October, 1990.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
Parties NAJIB ULLAH Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, SARGODHA REGION and another
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service 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 Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, 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)) (NAJIB ULLAH Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, SARGODHA REGION and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • MA.-Riaz for Appellant.
  • Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 11th August, 1990.

Headnotes / Summary

Dismissal from service

Civil servant was dismissed from service on allegation of misappropriation of Government food stocks and penalty of recovery of alleged loss by confiscating his surety's property was also imposed on him

Authorised officer had submitted his recommendations to without providing civil servant second opportunity to offer his explanation against such recommendation for imposition of major penalty on him which had vitiated proceedings against civil servant

Neither order of competent Authority for initiation of departmental proceedings against civil servant was obtained nor any order for dispensing with formal enquiry was passed by Authorised officer nor was civil servant given an opportunity of submitting a written explanation

Action of Authorised officer to merge two enquiries was illegal inasmuch as it also contained a charge relating to one enquiry which had not been conducted properly--Penalty of dismissal of civil servant otherwise was not justified as Government had already been reimbursed in respect of alleged losses, recoveries were effected and alleged shortage of stocks was made good

Such material irregularities in proceedings were not just minor flaws, but were major discrepancies which had prejudiced the case of civil servant

Entire proceedings having been rendered invalid by Authority in officer's ill-advised action, order against civil servant pad by basis of such proceedings, could not be sustained

Order of Authority was set aside with directions that de novo proceedings be initiated against civil servant after reinstating him in service. PLD 1980 SC 310 ref.

Judgment & Decree

Appeal No. 339/267 of 1986, decided on 16th October, 1990.

Dismissal from service

Civil servant was dismissed from service on allegation of misappropriation of Government food stocks and penalty of recovery of alleged loss by confiscating his surety's property was also imposed on him

Authorised officer had submitted his recommendations to without providing civil servant second opportunity to offer his explanation against such recommendation for imposition of major penalty on him which had vitiated proceedings against civil servant

Neither order of competent Authority for initiation of departmental proceedings against civil servant was obtained nor any order for dispensing with formal enquiry was passed by Authorised officer nor was civil servant given an opportunity of submitting a written explanation

Action of Authorised officer to merge two enquiries was illegal inasmuch as it also contained a charge relating to one enquiry which had not been conducted properly--Penalty of dismissal of civil servant otherwise was not justified as Government had already been reimbursed in respect of alleged losses, recoveries were effected and alleged shortage of stocks was made good

Such material irregularities in proceedings were not just minor flaws, but were major discrepancies which had prejudiced the case of civil servant

Entire proceedings having been rendered invalid by Authority in officer's ill-advised action, order against civil servant pad by basis of such proceedings, could not be sustained

Order of Authority was set aside with directions that de novo proceedings be initiated against civil servant after reinstating him in service. PLD 1980 SC 310 ref. MA.-Riaz for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1990.