1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ZULFIOAR ALI AWAN Versus HE CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH CANTT and others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas Lodhi and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members |
| Parties | ZULFIOAR ALI AWAN Versus HE CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH CANTT and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas Lodhi and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ZULFIOAR ALI AWAN Versus HE CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH CANTT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Mani for Appellant.
- Muhammad Younis, Manager (Legal), POF, Wah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Compulsory retirement‑‑‑Civil servant was compulsorily retired from service on allegation that he was involved in a corruption case‑‑‑Enquiry was held against civil servant and Enquiry Officer found him guilty of taking illegal gratification‑‑‑Civil servant having been found guilty of corruption, there should have been no leniency in his case‑‑‑Department, rather had taken a lenient view against civil servant by compulsorily retiring him as other three officers of the same department were dismissed from service on allegation of taking illegal gratification‑‑‑No injustice had been done to civil servant by his compulsory retirement, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Farooq Mani for Appellant. Muhammad Younis, Manager (Legal), POF, Wah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1994. MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant Zulfiqar Ali Khan Awan has come in appeal against the impugned order date 7‑7‑1994 whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. He made departmental appeal on 17‑7‑1994 which was rejected on 24‑8‑1994.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1991 three officers namely Khurshid Yousaf, Shahid Rafique and Zaheer Babar of the POF were involve in a case of forgery and fraud as a result of which an inquiry was conducted against them. During inquiry the three officers also took the name of the appellant in a forgery case on account of which the appellant was also suspended. Subsequently, he was charge‑sheeted. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet on 8‑10‑1991. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer absolved the appellant from all the charges. The appellant was also served with a show‑cause notice dated 25‑10‑1992 which was duly replied by him and denied all the charges. That without considering the reply of show‑cause notice and finding: of the Inquiry Officer the appellant was compulsory retired from service a stated earlier.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that inquiry was not conducted according to the rules. Further, the Inquiry Officer has absolved the appellant from all the charges except charge No. 3(d). Personal hearing was also not afforded to the appellant. Accordingly he prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
4. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that the appellant was involved in a corruption case for which disciplinary action was initiated against him as a result of which, after observing due process, he was compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the punishment is in order and may not be set aside.
5. We have heard both the parties and also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the Inquiry Officer has held the appellant guilty of taking illegal gratification of Rs.5,
500. We feel that there should be no leniency at east in corruption cases. Rather the department has taken a lenient view and he appellant hag been compulsorily retired while the other three officers of he same department were dismissed by the respondents. We are therefore satisfied that no injustice has been done to the appellant. As such we see nothing wrong with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with no order is to costs. H.B.T./1026/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.