2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Miss Salma Malik, Assistant A.‑G., Punjab M. Akbar, Tarer, A.A.‑G. and Aziz Ahmad Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2003.
- 2. It is, inter alia, contended by Miss Salma Malik, learned Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab that the provisions as contained in rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 have been misinterpreted and misconstrued by the learned Service Tribunal holding that Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department could not suo motu exercise revisional powers conferred upon Government pursuant to rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which would have drastic impact on various cases initiated/finalized under the Punjab Civil Servants (efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is next contended that order of authorized officer cannot be treated as sacrosanct and can be reversed or altered by the Government while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑8‑2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 1425 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4(1)(a)(b) & 18‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑ Minor penalty of censure imposed by Authorised Officer was substituted by Revisional Authority (Secretary to Government of the ‑Punjab, Agricultural Department) with major penalty of reduction in time scale by two stages‑‑‑Service Tribunal set aside order of Revisional Authority‑‑‑Contention of Department was that order of Authorize' Officer could not be treated as sacrosanct, but could be reversed or altered by Government while exercising revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider such contention and also the question, whether the Secretary could simultaneously exercise powers of Appellate as well as Revisional Authority, and if so, whether same would be in the interest of justice, fair play and equity. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15‑8‑2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted and the order dated 13‑1‑1999 passed by the Secretary Agriculture, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department exercising revisional powers as conferred upon Government under rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 whereby minor penalty of censure (instead of censure the word "warning" has been mentioned by the authorized officer which may be due to an inadvertent omission) was substituted with major penalty of reduction in time scale by two stages, was set aside.
2. It is, inter alia, contended by Miss Salma Malik, learned Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab that the provisions as contained in rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 have been misinterpreted and misconstrued by the learned Service Tribunal holding that Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department could not suo motu exercise revisional powers conferred upon Government pursuant to rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which would have drastic impact on various cases initiated/finalized under the Punjab Civil Servants (efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is next contended that order of authorized officer cannot be treated as sacrosanct and can be reversed or altered by the Government while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
3. Muhammad Afzal Khan (respondent) is present in person and supported the judgment impugned by reiterating the reasons as enumerated therein.
4. The contentions as agitated on behalf of Government of the Punjab need consideration. It is also to be seen as to whether Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department can simultaneously exercise the powers of Appellate as well as revisional Authority and if so, whether it would be in the interest of justice, fair play and equity? In sequel to the above mentioned discussion we are inclined to grant leave and accordingly this petition is converted into appeal which may be fixed at some early date. S.A.K./G‑188/SC Leave granted.