2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
RAFI AHMED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Members |
| Parties | RAFI AHMED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (RAFI AHMED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghauri for Appellant.
- Khalil Dogar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 10
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 4
Penalty of withholding of Annual Increments
Penalty imposed under two distinct provisions of law
Appellant had been imposed minor penalty of withholding of four Annual Increments by combining relevant provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
Provisions of two separate and distinct laws had been invoked in the impugned order
Held, in view of such obvious illegality involved in the case, case was remanded to Department for de novo proceedings within a period of three months
Impugned order was set aside and action was to be taken under relevant law. PLJ 2003 SCJ 510 ref.
Judgment & Decree
COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI No. CON/03/3001 CB(P) Dated: 17-5-2002 OFFICE ORDER No.67 2002 CBP(P) Consequent upon finalization of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rafi Ahmed Preventive Officer, under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 duly amended by Ordinance v of 2001, the Competent Authority has been pleased to impose a minor penalty of withholding of four (4) annual increments upon him, as provided under rule 4(i)(a) (ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973, read with section 3 of RSO 2000 duly amended by Ordinance V of 2001.
2. He is reinstated into service with immediate effect and period of his suspension period be treated as on leave. (Sd) Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive, Head Quarters, II. It is observed that provisions of two (2) separate and distinct laws have been invoked in the impugned order. Learned counsel has also referred B to case-law reported in PLJ 2003 SCJ
510. The operative part of the case-law is reproduced below: Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
S.13 thereof read with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999
Petitioner employed in Civil Courts
Proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 however at the time of issuance of show-cause notice the Competent Authority switched over to the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and major penalty was awarded thereunder
Appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal failed petition there against before Supreme Court on grounds inter alia that proceedings initiated under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 could not be converted into Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 in view of embargo placed by section 13 thereof
Impugned judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal and of Competent Authority set aside
Case remanded for proceedings under (E&D) Rules.
2. In view of obvious illegality involved, the case is remanded back to the department for de novo proceedings within a period of three (3) months. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside enabling the department to take action as per relevant law. H.B.T./69/FST Order accordingly.