1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHAFFAR ALI Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), NOWSHERA and 3 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman and Taj Muhammad Khan, Member |
| Parties | GHAFFAR ALI Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), NOWSHERA and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (a) North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (b) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (b) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N: W.F.P. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman and Taj Muhammad Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHAFFAR ALI Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), NOWSHERA and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Atiq-ur-Rehman Qazi for Appellant.
- Peer Bakhsh Khan Durrani for Respondent No. 4.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
R.10--Dismissal, without enquiry and show-cause notice--Validity--Appellant dismissed from service--Contention that appointment of appellant being temporary could be terminated without assigning any reason, repelled--Dismissal of appellant, held, was illegal and void--Appellant reinstated in service with all back benefits.
Appointment--Donation of land for construction of school--Whether donor could be appointed in place of appellant an existing employee--Held, there was no such law--Appointment of donors being a policy matter of Government could be enforced in cases of schools which were to be constructed in future. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).
Arieved by the impugned order dated 27-4-1988 of respondent No.l, the appellant assailed the same through the present appeal in the Tribunal alleging therein that he was appointed as Chowkidar in Government Primary School, Kurvi, Tehsil Nowshera, District Peshawar vide order dated 6-10-1987 and continued as such after obtaining a medical fitness certificate, till the passing of the impugned order against which he filed an appeal before the District Education Officer, respondent No.2 but without result, so the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order is wrong, illegal, mala fide, void, against the basic principles of natural justice and equity. No show-cause notice was served upon him. Respondents submitted the written statement denying his allegations and claiming inter alia that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary and his services could be dispensed with without assigning any reason. Besides this the person appointed in his place had donated the land for the construction of the school and he was appointed as such in accordance with the policy of the Government to accommodate the land-owners or heir men on such like posts. Record perused and arguments heard It is crystal clear from the record that there was no allegation of misconduct against the appellant. It is also clear that no show cause notice or enquiry was initiated in the case of the appellant, so the impugned order is apparently illegal and void. So far as the question of the donation of the land is concerned, this is not the law governing such like matters but a policy which was to be enforced in cases of those schools which were to be constructed in future. The persons who were already employed could not be removed/dismissed from service without observing the legal formalities. On the basis of the above we are constrained to accept the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Appellant is entitled to re-instatement from the date he was dismissed from service alongwith all back benefits. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. M.Z.S./113/Sr.N. Appeal accepted.