1999SCMR1311 (PLP)
LAHORE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD NAEEM BHATTI — Respondent
| Citation | 1999SCMR1311 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian. CJ., MunawarAhmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif. JJ |
| Parties | LAHORE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD NAEEM BHATTI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR1311 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR1311 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian. CJ., MunawarAhmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR1311 (PLP) (LAHORE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD NAEEM BHATTI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney-General and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-10-1997 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.323(L)/97).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art,212(3)
Major penalty of dismissal from service which was to be imposed on civil servant by Authority, having been imposed by Authorised Officer, civil servant was prejudiced since same person had acted in dual capacity as Authorised Officer was well as Authority
Service Tribunal, had set aside order of dismissal passed by Authorised Officer
Authority had contended that as Authorised Officer was also "Authority" for purpose of civil servant, judgment of Service Tribunal could not be sustained
No such plea was urged by Authority before Service Tribunal
Person who could be designated as Authority, would be higher in rank than person who could be authorised to perform functions of Authorised Officer
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communication Division, Islamabad and 2 others v. Zamir Ahmed 1996 SCMR 630 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4-10-1997 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal;; (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.323(L) of 1997, filed by ; the respondent against the order of his dismissal from service. The petitioners =; who are officials of the Post & Telegraph Department have filed the present In support of the above petition Maulvi Anwarul Haq, learned Deputy Attorney-General has contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable as the Authorised Officer in question was also the Authority for the purpose of respondent and, therefore, the reason found favour with the Tribunal is not in consonance with law. We find that no such plea was urged before the Tribunal. However, even on legal plane the above contention merits rejection in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communication Division, Islamabad and 2 others v. Zamir Ahmed (1996 SCMR 630) wherein inter alia the following has .-been held: No doubt, the said rules indicate bifurcation of the functions of the authority and the authorised officer, and the nature of the two functions clearly show that the person who may be designated as an authority would be higher in rank than the person who may be authorised to perform the functions of the authorised officer but, notwithstanding rule 6-A, as the person to be designated as the authority has not been vested with any kind of appellate powers over the latter, possibility of prejudice being caused to the accused by overlapping of the two functions appears to be remote. The learned counsel for the respondent has also, failed to spell out anything that may lead to an inference that any prejudice had been caused to the respondent in the present case. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, appears to have little merit. However, the Tribunal has simply relied upon its earlier judgment, which was not applicable in the present case, as was pointed out earlier. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside In the present case, since the penalty of dismissal which is a major penalty, was imposed which could only be awarded by the Authority and not by the Authorised Officer, the respondent was prejudiced by the factum that the same person acted in dual capacity, namely, as the Authorised Officer as well as the Authority. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and, therefore, leave is fused. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T.IP-:35!5 Petition dismissed.