1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAMSHAD ALI Versus SENIOR POSTMASTER (DELY) and others
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J |
| Parties | SHAMSHAD ALI Versus SENIOR POSTMASTER (DELY) and others |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAMSHAD ALI Versus SENIOR POSTMASTER (DELY) and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sadiq Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Compulsory retirement from service for temporary misappropriation money
Authority while proceeding against civil servant had adopted summary procedure dispensing with regular inquiry
Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioner's contention that procedure prescribed under R: 5, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was not followed and that there was no order passed or reason assigned for dispensing with regular inquiry and ordering holding of summary inquiry. Muhammad Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 SCMR1042 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he was charge-sheeted on the ground that there was temporary misappropriation of the amount of Rs.4,24,500 for which explanation was furnished by him that he deposited it late due to overburden of work, but his explanation was not accepted and straightaway order of major penalty retiring him from service compulsorily was passed without any enquiry. Perusal of the order of compulsory retirement passed on 30-3-1995 is indicative of the fact that in view of admission in the written defence statement, personal hearing was granted which shows that summary procedure was adopted dispensing with regular enquiry. It is contended before us that the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and discipline) Rules, 1973 was not followed and that there was no order passed or reasons assigned for dispensing with regular enquiry and ordering holding of summary try. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on the Muhammad Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan (1995 SCMR 1042).
2. Leave is granted to examine this case in the light of the contention mentioned above. A.A./S-66/S Leave granted.