2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS (LAW AND ORDERS) LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS (LAW AND ORDERS) LAHORE and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS (LAW AND ORDERS) LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Eshan-ul-Haq, Counsel for Appellant.
- Muhammad Naeem Malik, District Allorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Employee was dismissed from service on the charge that he remained absent from duty for the last two/three years
Period for which employee had been charged for being absent, had been paid by the Department
Employee had been prosecuted in a slipshod manner without noticing material error of pays being paid to him without giving proper weight to his absence or no-n absence
Alleged prolonged absence though was a serious charge, but haphazard prosecution was another proof of departmental slackness
Employee was reinstated with direction to the Authorities to hold a de novo proceedings against employee
Fate of intervening period would be decided after conclusion of said de novo proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL, (MEMBER).
The appellant was departmentally prosecuted on the basis of show-cause notice No.1052/RSP dated 10-2-2004 on the charge that he had remained absent from duty for the last two/three years.
2. On the basis of this prolonged absence, he was dismissed from service vide order No.756-58/RSP/H.Q. dated 20-2-2004 by the competent authority, which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order No.1422/PA dated 30-7-2004.
3. Aggrieved by these orders the appellant filed the instant appeal No.1654 of 2004. After its regular admission, the comments of the respondents were sought and are placed on file.
4. During the arguments the learned counsel Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, pointed out that the period for which he has been charged for being absent had been being paid by the police department vide "Qabzal Wasool", which has been perused in the open Court in the presence of Departmental Representative and learned counsel. It was found that he had been paid the salary regularly uptill 31-12-2003 and the pay of January and February 2004 had been refunded back by the disbursing authority because show-cause notice had been issued to him on 10-2-2004. This is an example of jumble of confusions on the part of the department. The appellant had been prosecuted in a slipshod manner without noticing the material error of pays being paid to him without given proper weight to absence or non-absence. This prolonged absence is a serious charge but haphazard prosecution is another proof of departmental slackness. I have no option but to reinstate the appellant and to direct the authorities to hold a de novo proceedings. The intervening period will be decided after the conclusion of the de novo proceedings. The result of de novo proceedings be intimated to Registrar of this Tribunal within 60 days. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost. Consigned to record room. H.B.T./64/PST Order accordingly.