1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Qazi MUHAMMAD ANWAR BARLAS Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | A. Q. K. Afghan and N. A. Chaudhury, Members |
| Parties | Qazi MUHAMMAD ANWAR BARLAS Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation [C. M. L. A.'s 58 of 1970]‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation [C. M. L. A.'s 58 of 1970]‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: A. Q. K. Afghan and N. A. Chaudhury, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Qazi MUHAMMAD ANWAR BARLAS Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing : 17th and 18th February, 1981.
- The appellant, arguing his case personally, adopted all the important arguments on points of law and procedure produced by Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate, and requested the Tribunal to consider his case in the light of those arguments.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Dismissal‑Procedural requirements of show‑cause notice, defence and personal hearing as required under S. 6‑A of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 not fulfilled‑Dismissal order set aside and re‑instatement with all service benefits awarded by Service Tribunal‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.
4. Appellant in person. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General, Hafiz Tariq Naseem alongwith D. R. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
N. A. CHAUDHURY (MEMBER).‑Qazi Muhammad Anwar Barlas, the petitioner in this case, joined the Police Service as an Assistant Superintendent of Police on 11‑12‑1943. While he was serving as Superintendent of Railway Police, Karachi, he was placed under suspension on the 3rd of December, 1969 under M. L. R.
56. Later on, he was served with a charge‑sheet to which he submitted a written reply and also appeared before the Military Tribunal. He was dismissed from service with effect from the 19th of May, 1970. He submitted an appeal to the Service Tribunal on 1‑8‑1974, which was dismissed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant went in appeal in the Honourable Supreme Court against the orders of the Service Tribunal. The appeal has been remanded to the Service Tribunal, along with other identical cases, under Civil Petition No. 69 of 1978, with the direction that the appeal be disposed of on merits in the light of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. K‑1 of 1978. The appeal under disposal having been filed on 1‑8‑1974, in accordance with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 within six months of the establishment of the Tribunal and is well within time. The appellant, arguing his case personally, adopted all the important arguments on points of law and procedure produced by Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate, and requested the Tribunal to consider his case in the light of those arguments. We have already considered these law points as well as the procedural illegalities committed in the M. L. R. 58 cases, in detail, in the judgment of Mr. W. A. Shaikh, along with the arguments of the defence counsel. No repetition is considered necessary, because the facts and circumstances of this case are almost identical to that of Mr. W. A. Shaikh. As per our judgment in Appeal No. 559(L)/1974. . . W. A. Shaikh v. Establishment Division, we accept the appeal of Qazi Muhammad Anwar Barlas, and direct his re‑instatement into service with effect from the date he was dismissed, as if no action had been taken against him under B M. L. R.
58. He would also be entitled to all consequential benefits relating to pay, allowances, pension, gratuity, with restoration of seniority in his cadre/group, with consideration for promotion, if any, permissible under the rules.