2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (HEALTH), MANDI BAHAUDDIN and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillan and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (HEALTH), MANDI BAHAUDDIN and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillan and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (HEALTH), MANDI BAHAUDDIN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aliya Neelum, Advocate Supreme Court, Naveed Sh. Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that though petitioners have no case and the impugned judgment is unexceptionable, however, since in the inquiry report, it is not clear whether it examined the Members of the Departmental Promotion Committee, to which reference has been made in the working paper dated 28-8-2006, the Government of Punjab is prepared to get the matter inquired into by a committee to be headed by an officer senior to District Coordination Officer.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 11-1-2010 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals Nos. 2056, 2057 and 2058 of 2009).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Such order was alleged by department to have been procured fraudulently
Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal on basis of report of Inquiry to the effect that appellant had failed to establish his promotion order having been passed by Departmental Promotion Committee
Plea of appellant that such inquiry was not legal as Members of Promotion Committee having considered working paper with regard to promotion of appellant were not examined during inquiry
Inquiry report did not clearly show whether Members of Promotion Committee were examined by Inquiry Officer or not
Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment and directed Secretary of the Department to constitute Inquiry Committee in terms of statement made by Law Officer and ensure conclusion of enquiry within specified time. Jawad Hassan, Additional A.-G. along with Dr. Khalid Pervez Kh., Distt. Officer Health, Farooq Amjad Nasir, Office Supdt. EDO Health Office, Mandi Bahauddin on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 646-L, 647-L and 648-L of 2010 as the issue raised is common and they have challenged a consolidated judgment of the learned Service Tribunal vide which the three appeals of the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that their promotion orders as CDC Supervisor and Tehsil Sanitary Inspector dated 14-7-2007 (in Civil Petition No. 646-L of 2010), dated 25-7-2007 (in Civil Petition No.647-L of 2010) and dated 12-7-2007 (in Civil Petition No. 648-L of 2010) were procured fraudulently. In dismissing the appeals, the learned Service Tribunal inter alia relied on the report of the Inquiry Committee to the effect that during the said inquiry, the petitioners miserably failed to prove that their promotion orders were passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the inquiry got conducted by the respondents was no inquiry in the eyes of law as Members of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which considered the working paper dated 28-8-2006 with regard to the promotion of petitioners, were never examined during the inquiry. She further submits on instructions that the petitioners would be satisfied if a de novo inquiry is held and the Committee to be constituted in this regard should be headed by an officer above the rank of District Coordination Officer, who should examine all the Members of the said Departmental Promotion Committee.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that though petitioners have no case and the impugned judgment is unexceptionable, however, since in the inquiry report, it is not clear whether it examined the Members of the Departmental Promotion Committee, to which reference has been made in the working paper dated 28-8-2006, the Government of Punjab is prepared to get the matter inquired into by a committee to be headed by an officer senior to District Coordination Officer.
4. The stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Law Officer is fair. In view of the above, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, shall ensure that the Inquiry Committee is constituted in terms of the statement made by learned Law Officer and this inquiry in concluded within 30 days of the receipt of this order. However, it would be open for the petitioners to approach the competent authority in the department to get copies of the service record, if they so require. S.A.K./M-40/SC Appeals accepted.