1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AYAZ HUSSAIN MEMON Versus HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL, SANGHAR
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman, Muhammad Ibrahim Lakhiar and A.Q. Qazi, Members |
| Parties | AYAZ HUSSAIN MEMON Versus HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL, SANGHAR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman, Muhammad Ibrahim Lakhiar and A.Q. Qazi, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AYAZ HUSSAIN MEMON Versus HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL, SANGHAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Appellant.
- Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Sind Civil Service Rules‑‑ ‑‑‑R. 152‑‑Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4‑‑Suspension of civil servant involved in criminal case and in police custody in lock‑up‑‑Criminal case resulting in acquittal‑‑Case, held, covered by 8.152 of Sind Civil Service Rules and such civil servant was entitled to full emoluments for suspension period‑‑Civil servant though released on bail remained absent‑‑No departmental enquiry conducted on charge of absence‑‑Order withholding pay for reasons of absence, in circumstances, setaside by Service Tribunal‑ Department, however, was at liberty to institute departmental enquiry under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to determine fact regarding alleged absence.
Judgment & Decree
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. They have consented to the following order:
1. That the appellant was suspended with effect from 31st March, 1982 as a result of institution of two criminal cases against him: one under section 307, P.P.C. and another under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance.
2. That the case a/s 307 was withdrawn and the appellant was acquitted and in the case a/s 13‑D, Arms Ordinance the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the unlicensed arms and ammunition from the house of the appellant and as such in that case too, the appellant was acquitted.
3. That in view of the position stated above, the case of the appellant is covered by clause (a) of Rule 152 of Sind Civil Service Rules and consequently appellant is entitled to full emoluments for the period of his suspension.
4. That the learned A.A.‑G. has alleged that the appellant remained absent from duty right from date on which he was released on bail (dated 16‑5‑1982) to 2‑11‑1984 but he conceded that no departmental inquiry has been held against the appellant nor any such finding about his absence for the said period has been recorded in any such inquiry.
5. That in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order No. ADMN‑ 11(3)554‑56/85‑1986, dated 14‑7‑1985 is set aside. The departmental authorities if so desired, will be at liberty to institute departmental inquiry under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 for determining the fact of the appellant's absence for the alleged period. A.E./83/Sr.T Order accordingly.