1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AKHTAR HAYAT Versus WAPDA through Chairman
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Muhammad Ismail, Members |
| Parties | AKHTAR HAYAT Versus WAPDA through Chairman |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), (a) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), (c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), (a) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), (c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Muhammad Ismail, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AKHTAR HAYAT Versus WAPDA through Chairman). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellant.
- Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing 17th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 17(1-A)
Power of removal having been given to Authority .it had been exercised in accordance with law-- Members concerned and Chairman who jointly constituted Authority had expressed their opinion in very clear terms about removal of appellant and impugned order was passed in pursuance of decision made by them-- Appellant's case was although separately examined by each Member and Chairman and it was not put before them in a joint meeting, but that was not necessary under law
Manner in which opinion of each Member and Chairman was expressed was not material; what was material was expression of opinion which was clearly expressed
There was no need for meeting of Authority for consideration as law does not enjoin that decision in respect of removal from service could be taken only in a formal meeting of Authority-- Positive application of mind of Members concerned and Chairman was required in support of decision which clearly was there
Order of removal from service was, thus passed by Authority validly under provision of S.17(1-A) of Act XXXI of 1958.
S. 17(1-A)
Necessity-- Authority was competent to remove any person from service without assigning any reason
Thirty days' pay in lieu of notice would be sufficient compliance with requirement of law.
S. 17(1-A)
Non-mentioning payment of thirty days' pay in lieu of notice in order of removal
Effect
Authority having passed order for removal of civil servant under S.17(1-A) of the Act XXXI of 1958, it was sufficient compliance with requirement of law
Such order need not have specifically mentioned that thirty days' salary be paid in lieu of notice
Authority's order of removal was thus, sufficient for all intents and purposes.
Judgment & Decree
S. 17(1-A)
Power of removal having been given to Authority .it had been exercised in accordance with law-- Members concerned and Chairman who jointly constituted Authority had expressed their opinion in very clear terms about removal of appellant and impugned order was passed in pursuance of decision made by them-- Appellant's case was although separately examined by each Member and Chairman and it was not put before them in a joint meeting, but that was not necessary under law
Manner in which opinion of each Member and Chairman was expressed was not material; what was material was expression of opinion which was clearly expressed
There was no need for meeting of Authority for consideration as law does not enjoin that decision in respect of removal from service could be taken only in a formal meeting of Authority-- Positive application of mind of Members concerned and Chairman was required in support of decision which clearly was there
Order of removal from service was, thus passed by Authority validly under provision of S.17(1-A) of Act XXXI of 1958. (b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)
S. 17(1-A)
Necessity-- Authority was competent to remove any person from service without assigning any reason
Thirty days' pay in lieu of notice would be sufficient compliance with requirement of law. (c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)
S. 17(1-A)
Non-mentioning payment of thirty days' pay in lieu of notice in order of removal
Effect
Authority having passed order for removal of civil servant under S.17(1-A) of the Act XXXI of 1958, it was sufficient compliance with requirement of law
Such order need not have specifically mentioned that thirty days' salary be paid in lieu of notice
Authority's order of removal was thus, sufficient for all intents and purposes. Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellant. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing 17th March, 1992.