1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PERVEZ MASIH Versus DIRECTOR, ATOMIC ENERGY MEDICAL CENTRE, NISHTAR COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MULTAN and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Ghulam Ahmad, J |
| Parties | PERVEZ MASIH Versus DIRECTOR, ATOMIC ENERGY MEDICAL CENTRE, NISHTAR COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MULTAN and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Ghulam Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PERVEZ MASIH Versus DIRECTOR, ATOMIC ENERGY MEDICAL CENTRE, NISHTAR COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MULTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Farooq for Petitioner.
- Mirza Aziz Akbar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R.5‑‑‑Employee of Atomic Energy Medical Centre‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, had been adopted by the Atomic Energy Medical Centre and made applicable to its employees‑‑‑Enquiry had been conducted against civil servant against whom charge of misconduct stood proved, with the result that his services were ordered to be terminated‑‑‑Record showed that every thing was done in regular manner, although civil servant's attitude towards inquiry committee was that of non‑cooperation and defiant which also amounted to indiscipline on his part‑‑‑Civil servant's dismissal from service was, thus, justifiable. (b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Civil servant without agitating matter before higher Departmental Authorities and without approaching Service Tribunal coming to High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Civil servant should have approached Service Tribunal after agitating the matter before higher Departmental Authorities; he could not straightaway come to High Court, invoking its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Civil servant had stated that charge against him was of factual character and same having specifically been denied by him, to prove the same detailed inquiry was needed‑‑‑Such being the case, Constitutional petition was not the remedy for scrutiny of disputed facts could not be undertaken and evidence could not be required to be led by the parties in such proceedings‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not competent and was otherwise without merit‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212. 1986 PLC (C.S.) 454 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Parvez Masih petitioner has been dismissed from service. He was an employee of Atomic Energy Medical Center, Nishtar Medical College, Multan and was found to have been guilty of gross‑misconduct, the allegation being that service records of a number of employees had been removed or destroyed by, him, and even a criminal case under section 380, P.P.C. had been registered against him at P.S. Cantt. Multan on 23‑7‑1992. He has challenged the vires of order of his dismissal and seeks reinstatement in service with all back benefits.
2. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 have been adopted by the Atomic Energy Medical Centre and made applicable to its employees, and under the same an inquiry had been held against the petitioner, against whom the charge stood proved, with the result that his services were ordered to be terminated. A perusal of the record reveals that every thing was done in a regular manner, although the petitioner's attitude towards the inquiry committee was that of non‑cooperation and defiance, and it also amounted to indiscipline on his part.
3. The petitioner himself states that the charge against him was of factual character and the same had specifically been denied by him, and for proof of the same, a detailed inquiry was needed, as it could not be looked into in proceedings of summary character. If that is the case, writ petition was not the remedy, as scrutiny of disputed facts could not be undertaken and for the purpose evidence could not be required to be led by the parties‑‑‑‑‑‑‑by respondents in proof of the allegations directed against the petitioner and by the latter in disproof of the same, or else for establishing his other assertions. Being a civil servant, it was also open to him to approach the Service Tribunal in the matter. He could even have agitated the matter before the higher Departmental Authorities and could not straightaway come to this Court, invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 4. 1986 PLC (C.S.) 454, a Service Tribunal ruling relied upon by the petitioner, is not helpful. What has been held is that if a Government servant files appeal before the punishing authority, and it is sought to be forwarded to appellate authority, and this is not done, the aggrieved person has no other choice but to avail of his remedy, by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, after waiting for 90 days. This course, then, could be adopted by the petitioner, who should not have hastened to come to this Court. Writ petition is not competent and is otherwise also without merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./P‑78/L Petition dismissed.