2010 PLP 705 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQ ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus N.E. D. UNIVERSTY OF EINGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI through Vice-Chancellor and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus N.E. D. UNIVERSTY OF EINGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI through Vice-Chancellor and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | NED University of Engineering and Technology Act (III of 1977) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 705 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: NED University of Engineering and Technology Act (III of 1977) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 705 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQ ALI SHAH — Petitioner Versus N.E. D. UNIVERSTY OF EINGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI through Vice-Chancellor and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Lateef Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court, and Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Tasnim, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the year, 1999 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for initiating disciplinary proceedings along with statement of allegations. The matter went upto the Supreme Court where the petition filed by the respondents against the decision of Sindh Service Tribunal dated 26-7-2004 by which punishment of compulsory retirement was converted into withholding increments for three years was dismissed, therefore, the petitioner was reinstated. He has further stated that on 25-8-2005 another show-cause notice was issued on the same allegations, which were the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings; that the petitioner replied the same on 31-8-2005 and after examining the said reply the said show-cause notice was vacated on 7-9-2005. He has further stated that the efforts of respondents to remove the petitioner from .service failed, therefore, with mala fide intention, passed the impugned order without assigning any cogent reason, hence, the said order is an illegal and requires to be set aside. Conversely, the learned Advocate for the respondents has argued that the earlier proceedings have nothing to do with the order passed on 26-9-2006 as the said order was passed independently, in exercise of powers conferred upon the Vice-Chancellor vide section 46.1(a) Clause (31)(a)(i) of the University Act, 1977; that the petitioner was retired after completion of 25 years of service and for that no show-cause notice is required to be issued. He has further stated that the petitioner had filed appeal before the Syndicate where he was properly heard and the order was maintained. He had also contended that there was no mala fide on the part of the authorities while exercising such powers and that the petitioner is going to retire on 1-3-2010 in about 2 1/2 months. He has further stated that the impugned order does not require any interference.
- 3. We have given due consideration to the arguments and find that the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 28(iv) of the University Act, 1977 read with section 46.1(a) Clause (31)(a)(i) retired the petitioner with immediate effect on account of 25 years qualifying service with all pensionary and other retirement benefits. Learned High Court has dealt with the subject extensively on the point raised by learned Advocate for the petitioner and after relying upon the various decisions of this Court formed the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had discretion under the law. We have examined the impugned order and find that the same has discussed each and every aspect of the case and after interpretation of the relevant provisions of law decided the same which does not require any interference. The petition has no merit, therefore it is dismissed. Leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 11-2-2009 in C.P. No.D-1882 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Sindh Karachi).
Ss. 28(iv) & 46.1(a) (31)(a)(i)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Order of retirement of employee
Grievance of petitioner was that he had been retired from service with mala fide intention
Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers vested in him under Ss.28(iv), 46.1(a) (31)(a)(i) of NED University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977, passed order of retirement of petitioner with immediate effect on account of 25 years qualifying service with all pensionary and other retirement benefits
High Court had dealt with the subject extensively and had rightly opined that Vice-Chancellor had the discretion under the law
High Court discussed each and every aspect of the case and after interpretation of relevant provisions of law, decided the same which did not require any interference
Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.
On 26-9-2005 the respondents through Registrar issued following order:
"The Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers vested in him under section 28(iv) of the University Act, 1977 (as amended) vide section 16.1(a) Clause (31)(a)(i) has been pleased to retire Mr. Mushtaq Ali Shah, Superintendent Transport in Services Department of this University from the University service with immediate effect on account of 25 years qualifying service." The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court of Sindh but his petition was dismissed, therefore, he has filed the present petition for grant of leave to appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the year, 1999 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for initiating disciplinary proceedings along with statement of allegations. The matter went upto the Supreme Court where the petition filed by the respondents against the decision of Sindh Service Tribunal dated 26-7-2004 by which punishment of compulsory retirement was converted into withholding increments for three years was dismissed, therefore, the petitioner was reinstated. He has further stated that on 25-8-2005 another show-cause notice was issued on the same allegations, which were the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings; that the petitioner replied the same on 31-8-2005 and after examining the said reply the said show-cause notice was vacated on 7-9-2005. He has further stated that the efforts of respondents to remove the petitioner from .service failed, therefore, with mala fide intention, passed the impugned order without assigning any cogent reason, hence, the said order is an illegal and requires to be set aside. Conversely, the learned Advocate for the respondents has argued that the earlier proceedings have nothing to do with the order passed on 26-9-2006 as the said order was passed independently, in exercise of powers conferred upon the Vice-Chancellor vide section 46.1(a) Clause (31)(a)(i) of the University Act, 1977; that the petitioner was retired after completion of 25 years of service and for that no show-cause notice is required to be issued. He has further stated that the petitioner had filed appeal before the Syndicate where he was properly heard and the order was maintained. He had also contended that there was no mala fide on the part of the authorities while exercising such powers and that the petitioner is going to retire on 1-3-2010 in about 2 1/2 months. He has further stated that the impugned order does not require any interference.
3. We have given due consideration to the arguments and find that the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 28(iv) of the University Act, 1977 read with section 46.1(a) Clause (31)(a)(i) retired the petitioner with immediate effect on account of 25 years qualifying service with all pensionary and other retirement benefits. Learned High Court has dealt with the subject extensively on the point raised by learned Advocate for the petitioner and after relying upon the various decisions of this Court formed the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had discretion under the law. We have examined the impugned order and find that the same has discussed each and every aspect of the case and after interpretation of the relevant provisions of law decided the same which does not require any interference. The petition has no merit, therefore it is dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./M-1/SC Petition dismissed.