2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AHMED TARIQ Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M-EE),
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Akhtar Hussain, Member, III |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMED TARIQ Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M-EE), |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Akhtar Hussain, Member, III.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AHMED TARIQ Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M-EE),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Rizwana Anjum Mufti for Appellant.
- Kh. Haider Ali, District Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Verbal order of termination of service carries no value in the eye of law
Civil servant was neither associated with any inquiry nor was provided any opportunity of defence before termination of his service
No proper order of termination was issued to civil servant-- Services of civil servant having been terminated in violation of prescribed procedure, his termination order was set aside and he was deemed to be in service from date his services were terminated.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant was appointed as C.T. Teacher vide order, dated 4-2-1997 on selection through the prescribed procedure. He joined his duty as such w.e.f. 6-2-1997.
2. As per statement of the appellant, he was verbally told by the Headmaster on 27-7-1997 that he should not perform his duties, followed by the written order by him informing the appellant that Government has decided to terminate the services of those whose appointment letters were issued under the signatures of Mr. Muhammad Hussain Gorya, the then D.E.O. (EE), Bahawalnagar.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the services of the appellant have been terminated without notice and without any opportunity of defence. Even no proper order of termination from services has been issued. Accordingly, the petitioner could neither approach the Departmental Appellate Authority nor file an appeal in the Punjab Service Tribunal. As such the appellant had to file writ petition in the High Court which directed the Director Education Bahawalnagar Division to decide the representation/appeal of the appellant vide order, dated 13-11-1997. The appellant had to file an other writ petition in the High Court, which was disposed of vide order, dated 17-3-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was filed within time and maintainable as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted.
4. The learned counsel has relied on judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 27-1-1999 in Appeal No.459 of 1998 under which it was held that the verbal order is not order in the eye of law. It was also held that where a Civil Servant is neither associated with the inquiry nor a party to any action against the appointing authority for issuing bogus or faked appointment letter, he is not liable to be punished. The appellant was neither associated with any inquiry nor provided any opportunity of defence before termination from service and, therefore, appeal is accepted. The appellant is deemed to be in service from the date his services were terminated, since the way in which his services were terminated was not in accordance with prescribed procedure and, therefore, void. H.B.T./21/P.(Sr.Trib) Appeal accepted.