2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed GHULAM MURTAZA Versus SECRETARY EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice (Rtd.) Riaz Kayani, Chairman, |
| Parties | Syed GHULAM MURTAZA Versus SECRETARY EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV 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 Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Justice (Rtd.) Riaz Kayani, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed GHULAM MURTAZA Versus SECRETARY EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Ehsan ul Haque Khan for appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4 & 10
No material progress had taken place from the date, suspension order was passed
Contention of the Authority that under S.4 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, it had powers to continue the suspension without any check was misconceived because when suspension was pending inquiry, an elaborate procedure had been given for the completion of inquiry within a definite period
District Attorney had made a candid statement that inquiry against appellant would be completed up to specified date positively
In case appellant would evade service or refuse to attend inquiry proceedings after having answered the summons, Inquiry Officer s powers would not be stifled to make him helpless, rather apart from adopting coercive measures, he could proceed against the appellant ex parte
Appellant did not want to press his appeal any further and had sought its withdrawal
Appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. Ijaz Halim Khan, Section Officer, Excise and Taxation Department, Departmental representative.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-2004 passed by Secretary Excise and Taxation Department/competent authority placing the appellant under suspension pending an inquiry. Departmental representation of the appellant addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, having remained unattended till the expiry of statutory period, recourse has been made to this Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances.
2. Learned District Attorney at the very outset raised an objection that suspension being not a final order no appeal is competent unless some law has been transgressed. Learned counsel on the other hand stated that the reading of the charge-sheet would show that a witch hunt has commenced against the appellant as the charges would itself disclose being without substance not appealable to any reasonable and prudent mind.
3. I have gone through the record and apart from other arguments the suspension order was passed on 21-7-2004 and it seems that nothing material has taken place as yet. The stance adopted by the competent authority in his comments that under section 4 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, he has powers to continue the suspension without any check is an extremely misconceived notion. Suspension in pending inquiry and an elaborate procedure has been given for the completion of inquiry within a definite period. Learned District Attorney has come to the rescue of making a candid statement that the inquiry would be completed till 15th January, 2005 positively and the date of hearing now given i.e. 20-1-2005 will be truncated and brought to 10-12-2004. Appellant has assumed the charge of Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan, service would therefore be affected at the aforesaid address. In case the appellant evades service or refuses to attend the inquiry proceedings after having answered the summons, the Inquiry Officer s powers are not stifled to feel helpless, rather apart from adopting coercive measures he can proceed ex parte. The department on its own end should not procrastinate the process till date of retirement of the appellant, as feared by him. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant stated that since January, 2004 appellant has not been paid his salary. I am certain that Secretary Excise and Taxation Department would leave no stone unturned to disburse the salary of the appellant by using his good offices. With these observations, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press the appeal any further for the present and seeks its withdrawal. Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations. H.B.T./32/PST Order accordingly.