2009 PLP 1025 (SCMR)
ABID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NESCOM, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1025 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Zia Perwez, JJ |
| Parties | ABID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NESCOM, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil service, (b) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1025 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, (b) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1025 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Zia Perwez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1025 (SCMR) (ABID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NESCOM, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haider Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 16-12-2008 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.1107(R)(C.W.) of 2004).
Charge against the civil servant was that he attempted to rape a lady who had visited the place of his work
Said charge was fully proved during regular inquiry conducted by the Committee; he had fully been associated with the proceedings; the witnesses were examined in his presence; he cross-examined them according to his choice, was given show-cause notice and above all, he had confessed his guilt in writing
Charge against the accused having been proved, no exception could be taken to such action against him.
Recommendations of Enquiry Committee
Inquiry Officer had recommended the stoppage of promotion for a period of 14 years but competent authority, not agreeing with the quantum of punishment, ordered removal of civil servant from service
Competent authority had every jurisdiction and power to disagree with the Inquiry Officer, especially on the quantum of punishment
In the present case, show-cause notice was served on the civil servant after submission of inquiry report and it was clarified to him that the punishment involved could include dismissal from service
Civil servant, in circumstances, was not condemned unheard. 2008 SCMR 1174 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Abid Hussain, a former Technical Helper, Project Management Organization (P.M.O.) National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), having been removed from service vide order, dated 27-5-2004 of the competent authority and the same having been maintained by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad vide judgment dated 16-2-2008, seeks leave to appeal therefrom.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 9-7-2003, in P.M.O. Colony, he attempted to rape Mrs. Surila, wife of Nazakat Khan, who had visited Medical Centre to meet Senior Nurse, Aziz-un-Nisa, after having learnt that the latter required a maid servant. The above charge is fully proved during regular inquiry conducted by the Committee. He had fully been associated with the proceedings; the witnesses were examined in his presence; he cross-examined them according to his choice; was given show-cause notice and above all, he had confessed his guilt in writing. The charge is proved and hence the action taken against him cannot be taken an exception to.
3. The Inquiry Officer had recommended the stoppage of promotion of a period of 14 years, but the competent authority, not agreeing with the quantum of punishment, ordered the removal from service. Learned counsel challenged this conduct, believing, that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to disagree with the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. We do not agree with the argument because the competent authority has every jurisdiction and power to disagree with the Inquiry officer, especially on the quantum of punishment.
4. The authority 2008 SCMR 1174 relied upon by the learned counsel has rightly been distinguished by the learned Tribunal, observing that in the aforementioned ruling, the official was charged of inefficiency and misconduct, while in case in hand, the charge relates to the moral turpitude, which, in a sensitive institution like that of respondent, must be seriously dealt with.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the action of the competent authority, that before disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In this connection, we would look into the show-cause notice dated 10-3-2004 (P.39), the contents whereof would clearly suggest that it was served after the submission of inquiry report and it was clarified to the petitioner that the punishment involved could include dismissal from service. The petitioner, therefore, was not condemned unheard.
6. Consequently, we see no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.B.A./A-24/SC Petition dismissed.