2013 PLP 780 (SCMR)
MARAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 780 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MARAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 780 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 780 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 780 (SCMR) (MARAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 3-8-2011 of Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, passed in Appeal No.129(K)CS of 2003).
Effect
Civil servant was charge sheeted twice on the allegation of misconduct and both times he was found guilty by the enquiry committees
Civil servant was also provided an opportunity of personal hearing
Civil servant submitted his acceptance of misconduct in writing and tendered an unconditional apology
Competent authority found him guilty of charges levelled against him and imposed upon him major penalty of removal from service
Appeals filed by civil servant before concerned Department and Service Tribunal respectively also failed
Contention of civil servant was that he submitted his written acceptance of misconduct on the assurance of the Department that he would be exonerated of the charges
Civil servant did not place on record the document by which he accepted his misconduct
Department provided opportunities of hearing to the civil servant and thereafter passed impugned order of his removal from service on the basis of serious allegations of misconduct
Civil servant also admitted all the allegations of misconduct made against him
No question of public importance within the meaning of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution had been pointed out by the civil servant
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner aggrieved from judgment dated 3-8-2011, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), seeks leave to appeal.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge sheeted twice on the allegation of misconduct and both the times, he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him by the enquiry committees constituted by the department. However, the authority i.e. Executive Director himself heard the petitioner at length and referred the matter for re-hearing to the authorized officer, who reported that the submissions made by the petitioner in his defence are unacceptable Thereafter, the authority i.e. Executive Director again provided the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, when he submitted his acceptance of the misconduct in writing and tendered an unconditional apology. Ultimately, the authority finding him guilty of the charges leveled against him imposed the major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. His departmental appeal as well as service appeal failed, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a number of inquiries held against the petitioner and that the order of removal from service was passed on the basis of unconditional acceptance of his guilt of misconduct, which in fact was given by the petitioner on the assurance of the respondent that he will be exonerated from the charge leveled against him.
4. We have carefully gone through the record and have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has not placed on record the document by which he has accepted his guilt of misconduct despite opportunity was provided to him to do so on 8-12-2011. The respondent-department after providing opportunities of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order of removal from service, on the basis of serious allegation of misconduct, which he himself admitted during the course of personal hearing by the Executive Director. This order has been upheld by the learned Tribunal, which in our considered view bases upon record and does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. Additionally, no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been pointed out.
6. Resultantly, the petition lacking in merit stands dismissed and leave to appeal refused. MWA/M-7/SC Petition dismissed.