1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
M. SALEEM‑UR‑REHMAN, INSPECTOR LEGAL Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and 2 others
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman, Syed Aal‑e‑Ahmad, Member‑I and Syed Ali Mohtshim, Member‑II |
| Parties | M. SALEEM‑UR‑REHMAN, INSPECTOR LEGAL Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman, Syed Aal‑e‑Ahmad, Member‑I and Syed Ali Mohtshim, Member‑II.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (M. SALEEM‑UR‑REHMAN, INSPECTOR LEGAL Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Safdar Ali Asif, DA for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules; 1973, Rr.4 & 5‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Major penalty of recovery of amount and stoppage of increments without appointment of Authorised Officer by the Authority‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Major penalty of recovery of huge amount and stoppage of three increments was imposed upon civil servant without appointment of Authorised Officer‑‑‑Authority and Authorised Officer could not join in one person and an Authorised Officer under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 could only impose a minor penalty‑‑‑Major penalty having been imposed without appointment of Authorised Officer, order imposing said penalty suffered from grave irregularity‑‑‑Service Tribunal setting aside order whereby major penalty was imposed, remanded case to Competent Authority to initiate de novo proceeding in accordance with provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. 1994 PLC (C.S.) 477; 1995 PLC (C.S.) 32; 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1,16 and 1997 PLC (C.S.) 657 ref. Haji Muhammad Iqbal Ch. for Appellant. Rana Safdar Ali Asif, DA for Respondent. The appellant Nazir Ahmad, Forest Guard, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the P.S.T., Act against the order dated 30‑9‑1991 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahiwal, whereby a major penalty of recovery of Rs.23,088 and stoppage of three increments was imposed upon the appellant. The appeal against the impugned order was dismissed by Conservator of Forest, Multan Circle, Multan through order dated 3‑1‑1994 hence this appeal.
2. The main contention of the appellant is that the impugned order suffers from grave irregularities as it has been passed by the authority without the appointment of an authorised officer. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as 1994 PLC (C.S.) 477, 1995 PLC (C.S.) 32, 1995 PLC (C.S.) 116 and 1997'PLC (C.S.)
657. All these authorities are to the point that the authority and authorised officers cannot join in one person. In such an eventuality, the final order shall be deemed to be that of the authorised officer. An authorised officer under the E&D Rules can only impose a minor penalty Since in the case, in hand, a major penalty has been imposed, it will be deemed that the impugned order was passed in excess of the powers.
3. In view of the above, both the impugned orders are not sustainable in law, which are accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the Competent Authority to initiate de novo proceedings in accordance with the provision of the E&D Rules. H.B.T./571/L (Sr.Trib.) Order accordingly.