2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NASEER AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus CHAIRMAN CBR, ISLAMABAD and another
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch, Members |
| Parties | NASEER AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus CHAIRMAN CBR, ISLAMABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NASEER AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus CHAIRMAN CBR, ISLAMABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghori for Appellant.
- Khalil Dogar, along with Dr. Junaid Ahmed Memon Assistant Collector Customs for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R.4(1)(a)(ii)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Imposition of minor penalty‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Minor penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon appellant after charge-sheeting him and holding enquiry against him on certain charges‑‑‑Counsel for Authority who was present along with Departmental Representative, at the very outset, had conceded that all charges leveled against appellant had not been proved and that he had no material to support the case of the Authority‑‑‑Charges leveled against appellant on basis of which penalty in question was imposed upon him, having not been proved, order imposing penalty was set aside with direction to the Authority to release all consequential benefits which were withheld as a result of said minor penalty.
Judgment & Decree
(Sd.) (SHAFIQULLAH) Secretary (ACE)"
2. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghori, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is still working as Deputy Assistant Chemical Examiner with the respondents and on 31‑10‑1993 he was issued charge‑sheet on the allegation of preparing test report in respect of samples of blended fabrics where he willfully conceded the crucial factors. Subsequently an enquiry was conducted where almost all the charges were not proved against the present appellant excepting charge No.3 for which a document has been produced which is dated 30‑10‑2002 and the said letter is signed by the Collector of the respondents‑Department. Paras. 2 and 3 of the said letter are relevant, as such the same are reproduced hereunder: ‑‑ "
2. The copy of the report "set of 29 samples of 31‑12‑1992" is enclosed herewith as desired. It is clarified that the document does not bear the signatures/initials of Mr. Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui in fact, Mr. D.M. Qureshi (Ex.‑Deputy Chemical Examiner) and Mr. I.M. Aslam (Assistant Chemical Examiner) had countersigned/carried out the chemical tests of these samples.
3. As the Appeal of Mr. Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui is sub judice before the Service Tribunal, Karachi, this Collectorate cannot offer comments on the same. However, as his initials/signatures are not found on the report as clarified in para.2, above as per Incharge Laboratory Letter No.Record/96/01/CE/R/28/96, dated 2-1‑1996 (copy enclosed). (Sd.) (AFTAB ANWAR BALOCHI) Collector" He has contended that since nothing was proved against the appellant, he has wrongly been punished whereby minor punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was ordered. At the same time he has contended that the appellant was put to unnecessary harassment, whereby he was placed under suspension on 12‑8‑1993, and for such humiliation he be awarded at least some compensation.
3. On the other hand Mr. Khalil Dogar who is present along with Mr. Dr. Junaid Ahmed Memon, Assistant Collector Customs has at the very outset supported the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, as according to him all the charges leveled against the appellant have not been proved. He has however, contended that charge No.3 was proved to some extent against the appellant, but considering the letter dated 30‑10‑2002, it would appear that the said charge was also not proved against him, as such, he has no material to support the case of the respondents.
4. In view of the fact that the charges leveled against the appellant were not proved as per Enquiry Report dated 8‑11‑1994. As charge No.3 is concerned, a separate letter has been issued by the Collector of Customs dated. 30‑10‑2002 which also speaks in favour of the appellant, as such, we get aside the impugned order dated 20‑4‑1998 and direct the respondents to release all the consequential benefits which were withheld by them as a result of the above minor penalty within 3 months of this judgment.
5. With the above direction, appeal in hand stands allowed with no orders as to costs. Announced in open Court today. H.B.T./130/F.S.T Appeal allowed.