2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
JAVAID IQBAL NASIR Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEPCO, and 2 others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Shahid Iqbal, J |
| Parties | JAVAID IQBAL NASIR Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEPCO, and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Shahid Iqbal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (JAVAID IQBAL NASIR Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEPCO, and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya for Petitioner.
- Mushtaq Masood for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Anonymous complaint
Effect on promotion
Inquiry was pending against the petitioner on basis of an anonymous complaint
Neither any show-cause notice was served on the petitioner nor he was associated with the inquiry
Authorities were bound by their office order, in which it was specifically provided, "that no action was required on the basis of anonymous complaint"
More over promotion of a civil servant could not be withheld due to some pending departmental inquiry
Constitutional petition was accepted with the direction to the department to decide the case of the petitioner for promotion solely on merits and rules without being influenced or taking into consideration the pending inquiry against the petitioner. Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Government of Sindh and others PLC 2007 (C.S.) 716 rel. Dr. Syed Zahid Bukhari, Standing Counsel. Amir Yasin, Deputy Director Rural Electrifiction in person.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, J.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner joined WAPDA as Assistant Budget Officer on 12-1-1985 and promoted as Budget and Accounts Officer on 10-10-1993. Thereafter petitioner came to know that an inquiry is pending against him before respondent No.1/General Manager (M&S) PEPCO, WAPDA House, Lahore. On 2-12-2009 the petitioner moved an application before respondent No.1. He also filed another application on 1-3-2010 before respondent No.2 but the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice regarding the pending inquiry nor has been associated with the said inquiry.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an anonymous complaint pending against him, which the department could not entertain and proceed. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Government of Sindh and others, (PLC 2007 (C.S.) 716).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent who has entered appearance has submitted that he has no instructions except to enter appearance along with their departmental representative who was also unable to admit or rebut the stance taken by the petitioner.
4. Heaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record I feel inclined to decide the matter thereby holding that the respondents are bound by their Office Order No.C/30(Coord)6(3)A/ Vol.V/21984-22584 dated 30th June, 1980, in which it is specifically provided "that no action is required on the basis of anonymous complaint". Moreover it is settled law on which learned counsel for the petitioner relied, in which it has so been held that promotion of a civil servant cannot be withheld due to some pending departmental inquiry. As the facts of the case are that anonymous complaint has been made and the time in this regard is very important when the case of the present petitioner for promotion has to be decided on 20th March, 2007. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted with the direction to the respondents/department to decide the case of the petitioner for promotion solely on merits and rules without being influenced and taking into consideration the pending inquiry against him. With this observation this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./J-7/L Petition accepted.