1998 PLP 2062 (SCMR)
GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2062 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2062 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2062 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2062 (SCMR) (GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Akram, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1995.
- Mirza Masood-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (General Manager, Pakistan Railways and two others) as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the officer who at the relevant time was the General Manager had earlier issued the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice to the respondent as Divisional Superintendent being the authorised officer. He, therefore, did not want to pass the final order as 'Authority' and referred the case to the Secretary /Chairman, Railway Board for nominating some other officer for passing final orders in the matter. The Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board then nominated the Member, Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Railways to pass final order in the disciplinary case of the respondent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the General Manager who was designated as Authority' had delegated his powers to the Member, Mechanical Engineering. In the submission of the learned counsel, in the peculiar circumstances, the officer nominated by the Chairman of the Railway Board was quite competent to pass the final order as 'Authority'. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that if for some reasons, the General Manager did not consider it appropriate to pass the final order as 'Authority', the matter should have been referred to the President for designating some other officer as 'Authority' in the case of the respondent which function could not be performed by the Chairman of the Railway Board.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26‑10‑1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 72(K) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑R. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Railway servant‑‑ Removal from service on ground of misconduct‑‑‑Order of removal was not passed by General Manager who was Authority designated but by Member, Mechanical Engineering of Railway‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Member, Mechanical Engineering was lawfully nominated as Authority' in case of Railway servant and whether order of removal passed by him did not suffer from wapt of authority/jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Muhammad Hussain respondent, permanent Way Inspector, (BPS-16) in Pakistan Railways was removed from service in consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on certain charges of misconduct.. Order of his removal was passed by Member, Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Railways, a Grade-21 officer. Respondent challenged his removal in an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal on the short ground that according to the relevant notification, General Manager (BPS-21) has been designated as 'Authority', in respect of Railway employees in BPS-16 while the impugned order has been passed by the Member, Mechanical Engineering, who is not an Authority' in the case of the respondent. The order of removal of the respondent was accordingly declared to be without lawful authority and the respondent reinstated in service.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (General Manager, Pakistan Railways and two others) as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the officer who at the relevant time was the General Manager had earlier issued the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice to the respondent as Divisional Superintendent being the authorised officer. He, therefore, did not want to pass the final order as 'Authority' and referred the case to the Secretary /Chairman, Railway Board for nominating some other officer for passing final orders in the matter. The Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board then nominated the Member, Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Railways to pass final order in the disciplinary case of the respondent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the General Manager who was designated as Authority' had delegated his powers to the Member, Mechanical Engineering. In the submission of the learned counsel, in the peculiar circumstances, the officer nominated by the Chairman of the Railway Board was quite competent to pass the final order as 'Authority'. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that if for some reasons, the General Manager did not consider it appropriate to pass the final order as 'Authority', the matter should have been referred to the President for designating some other officer as 'Authority' in the case of the respondent which function could not be performed by the Chairman of the Railway Board.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the question as to whether Member, Mechanical Engineering was lawfully nominated as 'Authority' in the case of the respondent and consequently the order of removal of the respondent passed by him did not suffer from any want of authority/jurisdiction needs consideration. Leave is accordingly granted.
4. Operation of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal is suspended but it is directed that since only a short question is involved, the appeal after its completion may be fixed at an early date. A.A./G-13/S Leave granted