2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD ANIS BUTT and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD ANIS BUTT and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD ANIS BUTT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all cases).
- M. Asghar Khan Rokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz‑ur- Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.P. No.3775 of 2002).
- Date of hearing: 4th August, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 15‑8‑2002 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos.836, 1685 and 1742 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6 (3)‑‑‑Building and Roads Department Code, item No. 198‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212 (3)‑‑‑Penalty of reduction in time scale‑‑‑Interference in departmental proceedings‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether Service Tribunal interfered in departmental proceedings, whereby civil servants were found guilty for committing gross negligence and misconduct in advancing material to contractor, contrary to instructions/rules of the department contained in item No.2.98 of Building and Roads Department Code, according to which advances to contractor are prohibited except in some cases i.e. the advances in respect of finished work and advance payment for the work actually executed, etc. Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos, 3773‑L of 2774‑L of 2002) not represented.
Judgment & Decree
Dismissal from service and recovery of loss caused. (2) Mr. Muhammad Anis Butt, formerly SDO Provincial Building Division, Jauharabad. Removal from service and recovery of loss caused. (3) Mr. Faqir Hussain, Sub‑Engineer. Removal from service and recovery of loss caused.
3. Chief Secretary as Authority heard the respondents through a Hearing Officer and vide order dated 10th January, 1998 imposed upon the respondents following penalties:‑‑ (1) Mr. Muhammad Dilshad Akhtar, formerly XEN Provincial Building Division, Jauharabad. Major penalty of reduction to, a lower grade under rule 4(1) (b)(i) and recovery of loss caused to Government under rule 4(1)(b)(i‑A) of the E&D Rules, 1975. (2) Mr. Muhammad Anis Butt, formerly SDO Provincial Building Division, Jauharabad. Major penalty of reduction in a time‑scale by two stages under rule 4(1)(b)(i) and Recovery of loss caused to Government under rule 4(1)(b)(i‑A) of the E&D Rules, 1975. (3) Mr. Faqir Hussain. Sub‑Engineer. Major penalty of reduction in a time‑scale by two stages under rules 4(1)(b)(i) and recovery of loss caused to Government under rule 4(1)(b)(i‑A) of the. E&D Rules, 1975. The respondents preferred departmental representations, which were rejected vide letter dated 3rd September, 1998, issued to them separately. Feeling dissatisfied, they approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by filing appeals, which have been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petitions for leave to appeal have been filed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and caveat in Civil Petition No.3775‑L of 2002, and having gone through the impugned judgment carefully, we grant leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine as to whether Service Tribunal, interfered in the departmental proceedings, whereby respondents were found guilty for committing gross negligence and misconduct in advancing material to the contractor, contrary to instructions/rules of the Department, contained in item No.2.98 of the Buildings and Roads Department Code, according to which "advances to the contractor" are prohibited except in some cases i.e. the advances in respect of finished work and; the advance payment, for the work actually executed; etc. M.H./C‑17/S Leave Granted