2011 PLC (C (PLP)
RAFIQUE AHMED Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 2011 PLC (C (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman and Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member |
| Parties | RAFIQUE AHMED Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLC (C (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLC (C (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman and Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLC (C (PLP) (RAFIQUE AHMED Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghauri for Appellant.
- Amanul Haque for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th December, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 5, 6 & 10
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Appellant was booked off from duty after issuing him show-cause notice with statement of charges through which regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with
Appellant, in his reply to show-cause notice had denied allegations levelled against him and submitted that fact-finding inquiry was conducted before passing of impugned order, but no regular inquiry was conducted
Appellant also submitted that no documentary evidence was supplied to the appellant on basis of which impugned action was taken--Counsel appearing for the authorities had no objection, if the matter was remanded to the authorities for conducting regular inquiry in accordance with law
By consent, matter was remanded to the authorities for holding de novo proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law and decide the matter within four months
Appellant was directed to be reinstated in service. PLD 2008 SC 456 and 2008 SCMR 1369 ref.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).
The appellant while posted as STE under GISTE Karachi City was booked off from duty on 26-4-2006. A show-cause notice with statement of charges to the appellant was issued to him on 21-10-2006 through which, regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with. The appellant submitted reply to the said show-cause notice. After receiving the reply from the appellant impugned order was passed by respondent No.2 on 30-10-2007 against which departmental appeal was filed which was rejected and thereafter the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal within time.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant at Inc very out set submitted that in his reply to the show-cause notice appellant has categorically denied the allegations. He further submitted that fact-finding inquiry was conducted before passing of the impugned order but no regular inquiry was conducted. So much so that no documentary evidence was supplied to the appellant on the basis of which impugned action was taken. Accordingly the impugned action is not sustainable in law. No major penalty can be awarded without holding the inquiry when the appellant had denied the allegations. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on PLD 2008 SC 456, 2008 SCMR 1369 and also 2009 SCMR 339.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection if the matter is remanded to the respondents for conducting regular inquiry in accordance with law.
4. In view of above circumstances, by consent matter is remanded to the respondents for holding de novo proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law and decide the matter/preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Appellant is directed to be reinstated in service and to face the inquiry. Back-benefits will depend upon the result of inquiry so conducted.
5. Parties are informed accordingly. H.B.T./23/FST Case remanded.