1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SABEHUDDIN KHAN Versus SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another
| Citation | 1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Irshad Khan and S.A.Sayood, Members |
| Parties | SABEHUDDIN KHAN Versus SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Irshad Khan and S.A.Sayood, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SABEHUDDIN KHAN Versus SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Mushtaq Ali for Appellant.
- Niaz Ahmad for Respondent
- Date of hearing : 1st December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.11(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4‑‑Termination of service of temporary employee, ad hoc appointee or probationer on consideration of misconduct‑‑Termination order did not embody such charge‑‑Procedure prescribed for punishment was to be followed‑‑Termination order passed by invoking powers under S.11(3) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and without recourse to Efficiency and Discipline Rules, held, was arbitrary, unjustifiable, unlawful and mala fide‑‑Order set aside by Service Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN, (MEMBER).‑‑The appellant was suspended from service as UDC vide order dated 22‑9‑1982 which is reproduced below:‑ "As there exists a prima facie case of 'Misconduct' against Mr.Sabehuddin UDC of this Custom House, he is placed under suspension with immediate effect and till further orders as provided under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. (2) During the suspension period he will be entitled to draw a subsistence allowance equal to half of his basic pay plus usual allowances admissible to him under the Rules. (3) During the suspension period the office of the AX. Estt. (A) shall be his HQ."
2. On 25‑9‑1982 an order was passed whereby the appellant's services were terminated on the ground that during the probationary period, his working and conduct had not been satisfactory. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed the present appeal on 14‑2‑1983.
3. It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in an identical case of Iqbal Wasti the order of termination of service passed in the similar circumstances and even on the same date has been set aside by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29‑2‑1984. We held in Iqbal Wasti's case that since there was an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, the order terminating his services amounts to removal and could not be passed except by following the procedure prescribed by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, while, the suspension order' established that the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were initiated against him by suspending him under the said Rules but without taking those proceedings to a logical conclusion al, slipshod method was used to get rid of the appellant in that case. The present appellant also had been impliedly punished and stigmized by the impugned order. We, therefore, reiterate the view taken in Iqbal Wasti's case that the impugned order was passed on consideration of the charge of misconduct for which the appellant was suspended. Therefore, it was but incumbent upon the relevant authority to proceed against the appellant under the Government Servants (Efficiency' and Discipline) Rules and termination of his service in an arbitrary and slipshod manner is totally unjustifiable, unlawful and mala fide.
4. In the result we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated into service and shall be deemed to be in service from the date of his suspension and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. A.E./377/Sr.F Appeal accepted.