1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AJMAIN KHAN Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION and 4 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | AJMAIN KHAN Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION and 4 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Board of Intermediate Education Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1976 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Board of Intermediate Education Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1976 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 Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AJMAIN KHAN Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Ghani Rashid for Petitioner.
- Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 16th, March 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Regn.7
Compulsory retirement from service
Effect of non-compliance of inquiry procedure
Where an Inquiry Committee was appointed, the Authorised Officer was required to frame a charge and communicate it together with the statement of allegations to the employee/accused requiring the employee to put a written defence. The Inquiry Officer or Committee was then required to examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the employee and the employee was entitled to cross-examine the witness against him. Regulation No.7 makes it clear that the inquiry was to be conducted in the presence of the employee/accused so that he may cross- examine any witnesses produced in the inquiry against the employee and to lead evidence in his defence. Admittedly, the Inquiry Committee did not give any notice to the petitioner to appear before it. It also was an admitted position that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board, there was no denial of the averments made by the petitioner that he had not been given any notice and was not associated with the inquiry. Copy of the inquiry report, if any, had not been placed on record. Nor any reference had been made to such inquiry report. There was a clear violation of Regulation No.7. The impugned order was based on the report of the Inquiry Committee. It was mandatory on the part of the Inquiry Committee to associate the petitioner in the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee and to afford him an opportunity to cross-examine any witness produced against him and to allow him to lead evidence and to make a statement on his behalf. As copy of the Inquiry report had not been placed on record and also was not available with the learned counsel for the Board, it was doubtful whether any inquiry at all was held or, if any inquiry was held, whether any statements were recorded. In view of the clear violation of Regulation 7 of the aforesaid Regulation of 1976, the impugned order could not be passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner.
Art. 199
Board of Intermediate Education Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1976, Regri.7
Compulsory retirement from service
Neither inquiry procedure was adopted nor employee was associated with inquiry which was conducted in, his absence
Order in question, compulsorily retiring employee was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect
Petitioner would, thus, be deemed to have been in service till he reached age of superannuation and was entitled to back benefits for period till date of his superannuation.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Board of Intermediate Education Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1976
Regn.7
Compulsory retirement from service
Effect of non-compliance of inquiry procedure
Where an Inquiry Committee was appointed, the Authorised Officer was required to frame a charge and communicate it together with the statement of allegations to the employee/accused requiring the employee to put a written defence. The Inquiry Officer or Committee was then required to examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the employee and the employee was entitled to cross-examine the witness against him. Regulation No.7 makes it clear that the inquiry was to be conducted in the presence of the employee/accused so that he may cross- examine any witnesses produced in the inquiry against the employee and to lead evidence in his defence. Admittedly, the Inquiry Committee did not give any notice to the petitioner to appear before it. It also was an admitted position that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board, there was no denial of the averments made by the petitioner that he had not been given any notice and was not associated with the inquiry. Copy of the inquiry report, if any, had not been placed on record. Nor any reference had been made to such inquiry report. There was a clear violation of Regulation No.7. The impugned order was based on the report of the Inquiry Committee. It was mandatory on the part of the Inquiry Committee to associate the petitioner in the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee and to afford him an opportunity to cross-examine any witness produced against him and to allow him to lead evidence and to make a statement on his behalf. As copy of the Inquiry report had not been placed on record and also was not available with the learned counsel for the Board, it was doubtful whether any inquiry at all was held or, if any inquiry was held, whether any statements were recorded. In view of the clear violation of Regulation 7 of the aforesaid Regulation of 1976, the impugned order could not be passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199
Board of Intermediate Education Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1976, Regri.7
Compulsory retirement from service
Neither inquiry procedure was adopted nor employee was associated with inquiry which was conducted in, his absence
Order in question, compulsorily retiring employee was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect
Petitioner would, thus, be deemed to have been in service till he reached age of superannuation and was entitled to back benefits for period till date of his superannuation. Usman Ghani Rashid for Petitioner. Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh for Respondents. Date of hearing 16th, March 1992.