2011 SCMR 1655 (PLP)
Mst. FIRDOUS BATOOL — Petitioner Versus 'EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1655 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khilji Arif Hussain and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FIRDOUS BATOOL — Petitioner Versus 'EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1655 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1655 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khilji Arif Hussain and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1655 (PLP) (Mst. FIRDOUS BATOOL — Petitioner Versus 'EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Zaka ur Rehman, Additional Advocate-General for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2011.
- 2-A. After arguing the case at some length, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents contended that though a regular inquiry was dispensed with in terms of section 5 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, but the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner requires a fact finding inquiry and accordingly not supported the judgment impugned.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment, dated 21-5-2010 "passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in S.A. No.1668 of 2009).
Ss. 4 & 5
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Reduction in rank from post of Secondary School Teacher to Elementary School Teacher
Dispensing with regular enquiry
Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal
Nature of allegation levelled against appellant required recording of evidence
Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment while observing that Authority, if desired, could hold a fresh inquiry against appellant within specified time.
Judgment & Decree
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner impugns the judgment of the Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without holding a regular inquiry in respect of alleged charge against the petitioner, major penalty of reduction in the rank from the post of SST to EST has been imposed. 2-A. After arguing the case at some length, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents contended that though a regular inquiry was dispensed with in terms of section 5 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, but the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner requires a fact finding inquiry and accordingly not supported the judgment impugned.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the nature of the allegations requires recording of the evidence, therefore, this petition is converted into appeal and the impugned judgment is set aside however the respondent-department, if so desires, can hold a fresh inquiry against the petitioner within four months from the date of this order. Disposed of accordingly. S.A.K./F-13/SC Appeal accepted.