1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AKHTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER/CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA,
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Khan, Member |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AKHTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER/CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AKHTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER/CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Riaz for Appellant.
- Sh. Najm-ul-Hassan and Ch. Marzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on charge of misappropriation of a large amount of money and after completing necessary formalities he was dismissed from service-- Superintending Engineer under whose immediate supervision civil servant was working at the time of initiation of proceedings, was alone competent to act as, authorised officer and officer above him who was Chief Engineer was competent to act as authority under schedule to Delegation of Powers Rules 1982, but instead Chief Engineer and General Manager acted as Authorised Officer and Authority respectively
Proceedings conducted against civil servant were void ab initio due to illegality committed in appointment of Authorised Officer and Authority.
Neither second show-cause notice was issued to civil servant nor copy of recommendations of Authorised Officer was supplied to him as required under the relevant Rules
Failure to issue second show -cause notice which was obligatory on Authorised Officer and to provide opportunity to show cause against proposed punishment and non-supply of copy of recommendation of Authorised Officer, had seriously prejudiced civil servant and constituted a grave violation of the Rules
Such serious deficiency in proceedings could not be brushed aside. PLD 1981 SC 176;1987 SCMR 1562;1984 SCMR 451 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil service
Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on charge of misappropriation of a large amount of money and after completing necessary formalities he was dismissed from service-- Superintending Engineer under whose immediate supervision civil servant was working at the time of initiation of proceedings, was alone competent to act as, authorised officer and officer above him who was Chief Engineer was competent to act as authority under schedule to Delegation of Powers Rules 1982, but instead Chief Engineer and General Manager acted as Authorised Officer and Authority respectively
Proceedings conducted against civil servant were void ab initio due to illegality committed in appointment of Authorised Officer and Authority. (b) Civil service
Neither second show-cause notice was issued to civil servant nor copy of recommendations of Authorised Officer was supplied to him as required under the relevant Rules
Failure to issue second show -cause notice which was obligatory on Authorised Officer and to provide opportunity to show cause against proposed punishment and non-supply of copy of recommendation of Authorised Officer, had seriously prejudiced civil servant and constituted a grave violation of the Rules
Such serious deficiency in proceedings could not be brushed aside. PLD 1981 SC 176;1987 SCMR 1562;1984 SCMR 451 ref. M.A. Riaz for Appellant. Sh. Najm-ul-Hassan and Ch. Marzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1990.