2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed HAMID ALI Versus A.G. SINDH and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Members |
| Parties | Syed HAMID ALI Versus A.G. SINDH and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed HAMID ALI Versus A.G. SINDH and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asif Mangi, Standing Counsel with Dr. Rasheed Ahmed, A.A.O. for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN (MEMBER).
Heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned and also perused the record.
2. Without going into the merit of the case, we have observed the following legal infirmities in the processing of this case: (i) The statement of allegations dated 3-10-2000 was issued by the Authority whereas under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 it should have been issued by the Inquiry Committee; (ii) the Inquiry Committee while exonerating the Appellant of the first two allegations held him culpable for allegation No.3 and recommended major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The Authority did not accept the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee and without giving any reasons enhanced the penalty to removal from service under Removal A from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000; (iii) the Senior Auditor Aftab Ali Mangi, who was also involved in the processing of the case, was not imposed any penalty although the Inquiry Committee also held him guilty; (iv) the prosecution did not involve the Senior Auditor and other staff members in the processing of this case in the Inquiry Proceedings and thus dented the defence of the Appellant.
3. In view of the above position, we feel that the case needs re- appraisal at the departmental level. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 15-3-2001, reinstate the Appellant in service with effect from the date of his removal. It is, however, open to the Department to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant based on the same allegations within a period of six months in accordance with law and by removing lacunae, mentioned above, back benefits and retention of the Appellant in the service of the Respondents Department shall depend upon the findings of the inquiry proceedings, if conducted within the timeframe, as mentioned above.
4. Announced in open Court.
5. No order as to costs. H.B.T./71/FST Appeal allowed accordingly.