2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAUKAT SALEEM AKHUND Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED through Chairman and 2 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT SALEEM AKHUND Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED through Chairman and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (d) Administration of justice, (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (c) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (d) Administration of justice, (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (c) Civil service, (b) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAUKAT SALEEM AKHUND Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED through Chairman and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Sagar for Petitioner.
- Mazhar Jaferi for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Compulsory retirement of an employee
Service Tribunal found irregularities/illegalities in the procedure which led to the major penalty and directed the department to reinstate the employee into service for facing inquiry
Department was further directed to complete the inquiry within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment and if inquiry was not completed within stipulated period then it would be presumed that no fresh action would be taken in the matter and employee should be reinstated in service with all back benefits
Inquiry Officer recommended a major penalty of reduction to a lower post but department removed the employee from service by enhancing penalty
Contention of employee was that department had failed to comply with the judgment of Service Tribunal
Department was bound to complete inquiry within the time stipulated by the Service Tribunal
Due process should be ensured in terms of providing necessary documents to the employee which he required to defend his case
Inquiry had been concluded within time
Technical defect in the proceedings did not prevent employee from making a defense to the allegations leveled against him
Employee was not allowed to cross-examine one of the witnesses
Employee was removed from service without assigning any reason for enhancement of penalty
Employee had unblemished service record and he could not be awarded major penalty without speaking order as to why penalty was enhanced
Penalty had been enhanced without reasons and in an arbitrary manner
Competent authority was not bound by the recommendations of Inquiry Officer
Second show cause notice did not specify the type of major penalty to be imposed upon the employee
If department was inclined to impose a major penalty beyond the recommendations of Inquiry Officer then employee should be confronted with the reasons
Impugned order was set aside
Department was directed by High Court to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the employee by passing a speaking order within 20 days failing which it should pay all the back benefits as recommended by the Inquiry Officer until he reached superannuation within 7 days and thereafter any consequential benefits if any as pension
Employee should vacate official accommodation after receipt of back benefits
Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances. Zarai Taraqiati Bank v. Aftab Kalachi 2009 SCMR 129; Secretary Local Government Punjab v. Ahmad Yar Khan 2010 PLC (C.S.) 495; Allah Yar v. General Manager Railways HQ Lahore 2001 SCMR 256 and Province of Punjab v. Farooq Ahmed Rehman 2007 PLC (C.S.) 781 ref. Secretary Local Government Punjab v. Ahmad Yar Khan 2010 PLC (C.S.) 501 Muneer Ahmed v. Asstt. Chief Human Resource 2015 PLC (CS) 501 and Government of Punjab v. Abdul Sattar 1990 SCMR 995 rel.
Scope
Object of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was to provide mechanism for speedy disposal of cases.
Competent authority would not be bound by the recommendations of inquiry officer.