1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL MAJEED Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N-W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Siddique Khattak and Taj Muhammad Khan, Members |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR and another |
| 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 N-W.F.P. bench comprising: Muhammad Siddique Khattak and Taj Muhammad Khan, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL MAJEED Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Adam Khan for Appellant.
- Said Bashar Khan, Government Pleader for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Re-appointment
Civil servant duly appointed, was dismissed from service on account of conviction in criminal case against him
Later on free pardon was given to him and disability for his fresh employment was also removed-- fresh appointment of civil servant which was made in relaxation of all rules including his appointment without recommendations of Public Service Commission and his upper age limit, was objected to contending that Public Service Commission was not consulted and no relaxation in upper age limit was obtained before making appointment of civil, servant and that no precedent existed where Government servant in BS-17 and above had been appointed on regular basis in relaxation of rules and bypassing selection process of Public Service Commission
Contentions were repelled holding that it was not first appointment of civil servant and he had already gone through process of selection by Public Service Commission when he was first appointed
When once suitability of civil servant was assessed by Public Service Commission and he was recommended for appointment, there was hardly any need of consulting Public Service Commission on appointment in same scale and against a similar post
In absence of any other charge against civil servant on basis of which Public Service Commission could reassess his suitability and his appointment having been made on regular bass, civil servant was exempted from appearing for second time before Public Service Commission for assessment of his suitability and by implication relaxation in. upper age limit was, also accorded. --Termination of service
Termination (Removal) of service of civil servant, was a major penalty for which procedure laid down in relevant rules, should have been followed
Nothing was on record to show that before: termination of service of civil servant, a show-cause notice was given to him
No reason, whatsoever, were indicated in termination order of civil servant nor he was given any opportunity of personal hearing
Civil servant having been condemned un-heard, which was violation of principles of natural justice, order of terminating services of civil servant, could not sustain.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 146 of 1989, decided on 9th October, 1990. (a) Civil service
Re-appointment
Civil servant duly appointed, was dismissed from service on account of conviction in criminal case against him
Later on free pardon was given to him and disability for his fresh employment was also removed-- fresh appointment of civil servant which was made in relaxation of all rules including his appointment without recommendations of Public Service Commission and his upper age limit, was objected to contending that Public Service Commission was not consulted and no relaxation in upper age limit was obtained before making appointment of civil, servant and that no precedent existed where Government servant in BS-17 and above had been appointed on regular basis in relaxation of rules and bypassing selection process of Public Service Commission
Contentions were repelled holding that it was not first appointment of civil servant and he had already gone through process of selection by Public Service Commission when he was first appointed
When once suitability of civil servant was assessed by Public Service Commission and he was recommended for appointment, there was hardly any need of consulting Public Service Commission on appointment in same scale and against a similar post
In absence of any other charge against civil servant on basis of which Public Service Commission could reassess his suitability and his appointment having been made on regular bass, civil servant was exempted from appearing for second time before Public Service Commission for assessment of his suitability and by implication relaxation in. upper age limit was, also accorded. (b) Civil service
Termination (Removal) of service of civil servant, was a major penalty for which procedure laid down in relevant rules, should have been followed
Nothing was on record to show that before: termination of service of civil servant, a show-cause notice was given to him
No reason, whatsoever, were indicated in termination order of civil servant nor he was given any opportunity of personal hearing
Civil servant having been condemned un-heard, which was violation of principles of natural justice, order of terminating services of civil servant, could not sustain. Adam Khan for Appellant. Said Bashar Khan, Government Pleader for Respondents.