2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KAFYAT ULLAH KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another
| Citation | 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | KAFYAT ULLAH KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KAFYAT ULLAH KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional A.-G. and Sajid Cheema, Inspector Legal, ICT for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 26.05.2017, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 2094(R)CS/2015).
Art. 212(3)
Absence from duty
Period of absence from service treated as leave without pay
Double penalty
Contention of petitioner-civil servant that when the penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to him, the further order by which his absence period of 9 months and 13 days was treated as leave without pay would amount to double penalty upon him
Contention by Provincial Law Officer that in similar situations the Supreme Court in different cases had held that the penalty of dismissal from service could be maintained even though the absence had been treated as leave without pay
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider and decide the issue in question as there appeared to be some conflict in the judgments of the Supreme Court on the point in issue. Lahore Development Authority and others v. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo and another 2006 PLC (C.S.) 294; Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Returning Officer and 3 others PLD 2008 SC 355 and Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Shan Elahi 1998 SCMR 1890 ref.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
By the order dated 21.11.2014 the petitioner was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect and the period of absence i.e. 9 months and 13 days was treated as leave without pay. The petitioner challenged this order before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the Tribunal). The Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017 converted the penalty of dismissal from service to that of removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that where the order of imposing penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner was made, the further order by which absence period of 9 months and 13 days was treated as leave without pay would amount to double penalty upon the petitioner and in this regard has relied upon the case of Lahore Development Authority and others vs. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo and another (2006 PLC (C.S.) 294), wherein this Court has held that when the penalty has been imposed with a further making of absence period as leave without pay, the same order will not sustain and the dismissal order will be set aside in that the leave without pay will be counted as a penalty.
2. Learned Additional A.G. has relied upon the case of Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Returning Officer and 3 others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 355) and also the case of Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Shan Elahi (1998 SCMR 1890) to contend that in a similar situation this Court has held that the penalty of dismissal from service could be maintained even though the absence has been treated as leave without pay.
3. As there appears to be some conflict in the judgments of this Court on the point in issue, thus it is appropriate that leave to appeal be granted in the case to thresh out the issue and decide the same.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider inter alia the above question. The appeal shall be heard on the available record but the parties are allowed to file additional documents within a period of one month. As the matter relates to service, office is directed to fix the same expeditiously preferably immediately after three months. MWA/K-8/SC Leave granted.