1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed SAYYAD ALI GILLANI Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SETTLEMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | Syed SAYYAD ALI GILLANI Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SETTLEMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (a) 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 Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, 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)) (Syed SAYYAD ALI GILLANI Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SETTLEMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Nazir Hussain Shah for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Censure and stoppage of annual increment
Civil servant on basis of report of Inquiry Officer, was found responsible for dereliction of his duties and was awarded punishment of censure and stoppage of one annual increment-- Charges against civil servant were not framed specifically and properly and statement of allegations showing detail of facts constituting charges, was also missing on file
Complaint against civil servant was initiated by Officer who subsequently was appointed as Inquiry Officer by Authorised Officer-- Complainant himself could not be permitted to sit as a Judge after he was found to have submitted his report against accused civil servant to be proceeded against
Authorised Officer should have entrusted inquiry to some other competent Officer and not to Officer who had earlier initiated complaint against civil servant
Civil servant having been prejudiced by not accepting his genuine request for changing Inquiry Officer, order awarding punishment of censure and stoppage of annual increment, was set aside.
Departmental enquiry
Complaint against civil servant originally was initiated by Officer who subsequently was appointed as Inquiry Officer by Authorised Officer
Complainant himself could not be permitted to sit as a Judge after he was found to have submitted his report against accused civil servant to be proceeded against
Authorised officer should have entrusted inquiry to some other competent Officer and not to Officer who had earlier initiated complaint against civil servant.
Judgment & Decree
Service Appeal No. 550 of 1991, decided on 16th January, 1992. (a) Civil service
Censure and stoppage of annual increment
Civil servant on basis of report of Inquiry Officer, was found responsible for dereliction of his duties and was awarded punishment of censure and stoppage of one annual increment-- Charges against civil servant were not framed specifically and properly and statement of allegations showing detail of facts constituting charges, was also missing on file
Complaint against civil servant was initiated by Officer who subsequently was appointed as Inquiry Officer by Authorised Officer-- Complainant himself could not be permitted to sit as a Judge after he was found to have submitted his report against accused civil servant to be proceeded against
Authorised Officer should have entrusted inquiry to some other competent Officer and not to Officer who had earlier initiated complaint against civil servant
Civil servant having been prejudiced by not accepting his genuine request for changing Inquiry Officer, order awarding punishment of censure and stoppage of annual increment, was set aside. (b) Civil service
Departmental enquiry
Complaint against civil servant originally was initiated by Officer who subsequently was appointed as Inquiry Officer by Authorised Officer
Complainant himself could not be permitted to sit as a Judge after he was found to have submitted his report against accused civil servant to be proceeded against
Authorised officer should have entrusted inquiry to some other competent Officer and not to Officer who had earlier initiated complaint against civil servant. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents.