1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL SATTAR SALEEMI Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR SALEEMI Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL SATTAR SALEEMI Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Bashir Ansari and Hafiz S.A. Rehman for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 4, 25 & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Employee of statutory body‑‑‑Removal of employee for misconduct‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings against employee though initiated were not completed‑‑‑Employee meanwhile was challaned and put to trial before Special Judge from where he was acquitted‑‑‑Employee's application for reinstatement was turned down on the ground that although Special Judge had acquitted employee, yet having not directed employer to reinstate him in service, he could not be reinstated in service‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Interpretation of order of Special Judge against which no appeal had been filed by respondent and which had attained finality, as bar against re‑instatement of employee appeared to be mala fide‑‑‑Administrative action based on mala fides was not warranted by law‑‑‑To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen under Art. 4 of the Constitution‑‑‑Similarly all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law under Art. 25 of the Constitution‑‑‑Petitioner was reinstated on his post with back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Federal Board: of Intermediate and‑ Secondary Education, Islamabad, in the year 1976 as a Lower Division Clerk. He was promoted as Assistant in 1986. On 10‑4‑1986, he was suspended on certain allegations and in May, 1986, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and the services of the petitioner were removed on 4‑9‑1986. Meanwhile the matter was taken up by the F.I.A. and the case was registered against the petitioner. He filed an appeal against the termination and the removal from the service on which he was informed that the matter was deferred till the findings of the F.I.A. The prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the petitioner at the trial before learned Special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi and he was acquitted. No appeal was filed against the acquittal order dated 30‑6‑1994 of the learned Special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi. The petitioner moved an application to the respondent for reinstatement on 26‑7‑1994 but he was not reinstated. He again approached to the respondent on 28‑8‑1994 and was informed teat the Hon'ble Special Judge acquitted the petitioner but not directed the respondent to accept him as an employee, so he cannot be reinstated in service.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Enquiry Committee did not give any findings and left the matter to be investigated by the F.I.A. which was fully investigated and the petitioner was put to the acid test of trial but the prosecution could not prove allegations levelled against him and he was acquitted. The petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for 8 years and even payment of back benefits cannot be adequate compensation for so long humiliation of a citizen.
3. In this manner the interpretation of the order of learned special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi against which no appeal has been filed by the respondent and which has attained finality, as a bar against reinstatement of the petitioner, appears to be mala fide. An administrative action based on mala fide is not warranted by law. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen under Article 4 of the Constitution. Similarly all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
4. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is reinstated on his post with back benefits. Order accordingly with no order as, to costs. A.A./A‑123/L Petition accepted.