1995SCMR721 (PLP)
Mst. NARGIS KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR721 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NARGIS KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR721 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR721 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR721 (PLP) (Mst. NARGIS KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in person).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
- 2. It appears from the decisions of the High Court mentioned above, that Corporation made sincere efforts relentlessly to associate the petitioner with disciplinary proceedings and serve charge‑sheet on her but she persistently avoided service and even remained absent from duty. It is stated in the Enquiry Report that she refused to take delivery of the envelope containing charge sheet and statement of allegations in presence of two witnesses and such efforts were repeated to serve her on her two Lahore residential addresses and address of her Advocate. Charge‑sheet sent on the third address mentioned above, was accepted as per postal receipt but she did not file written defence and refused to participate in the proceedings. A notice calling upon her to join proceedings was published in "Nawa‑e‑Waqt" dated 31‑12‑1989. Station Director sent charge‑sheet at her official address through registered post on 15‑1‑1990, which was accepted by her but without response. In such circumstances after giving several opportunities to her to appear and participate in the proceedings and on her persistent non‑cooperation, prosecution evidence was brought on the record and statements were recorded on 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th March, 1990, but still petitioner did not participate.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12‑6‑1993 passed in I.C.A. No. 116 of 1993). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 185 (3)‑‑‑Employee of statutory Corporation‑‑‑Removal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plea of non hearing‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner (employee) was unable to satisfy the High Court that she was ready and willing and was not joined in the disciplinary proceedings with mala fide intention‑‑‑When petitioner was uncooperative‑‑‑Question of not getting personal hearing would not arise‑‑ High Court while dismissing Constitutional petition had given very valid reasons with which no interference I was made in the Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑ Petitioner failed to point out any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner was in employment of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation in Scale No.4 and in consequence of disciplinary proceedings was removed from service vide order dated 22‑9‑1990. She filed departmental appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 21‑9‑1991. She filed Writ Petition No. 10049/91 in Lahore High Court, Lahore on the grounds that she was not associated with disciplinary proceedings, not served with charge sheet, was not given personal hearing and her departmental appeal was dismissed without assigning reasons. Writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 6‑2‑1993 by learned Judge in Chamber, against which Intra‑Court Appeal No. 116 of 1993 was filed which is dismissed vide judgment dated 12‑6‑1993, against which leave is sought to file appeal in this Court.
2. It appears from the decisions of the High Court mentioned above, that Corporation made sincere efforts relentlessly to associate the petitioner with disciplinary proceedings and serve charge‑sheet on her but she persistently avoided service and even remained absent from duty. It is stated in the Enquiry Report that she refused to take delivery of the envelope containing charge sheet and statement of allegations in presence of two witnesses and such efforts were repeated to serve her on her two Lahore residential addresses and address of her Advocate. Charge‑sheet sent on the third address mentioned above, was accepted as per postal receipt but she did not file written defence and refused to participate in the proceedings. A notice calling upon her to join proceedings was published in "Nawa‑e‑Waqt" dated 31‑12‑1989. Station Director sent charge‑sheet at her official address through registered post on 15‑1‑1990, which was accepted by her but without response. In such circumstances after giving several opportunities to her to appear and participate in the proceedings and on her persistent non‑cooperation, prosecution evidence was brought on the record and statements were recorded on 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th March, 1990, but still petitioner did not participate.
3. Petitioner was unable to satisfy the High Court in writ proceedings that she was ready and willing and was not joined in the proceedings by the Corporation with mala fide intention. With such uncooperative attitude, question of not getting personal hearing does not arise. High Court while dismissing writ petition has given very valid reasons with which no interference was made in the Intra‑Court Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out before us any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court in Intra‑Court Appeal, hence we are of the view that it is not a fit case for leave, which is refused and this petition is dismissed as lacking merits. AA./N‑365/S Leave refused.