2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS ISLAMABAD and others Versus Syed MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Hamid Ali Mirza and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | DIRECTOR-GENERAL, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS ISLAMABAD and others Versus Syed MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Hamid Ali Mirza and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DIRECTOR-GENERAL, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS ISLAMABAD and others Versus Syed MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 3-8-2004 in Appeals Nos.294(K)CS of 2002 to 296(K)CS of 2002 passed by the Federal. Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
Ss. 3 & 10
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Conversion of penalty into minor penalty of stoppage of three increments
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether modification and alteration in punishment awarded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, could not have been made by the Service Tribunal, which modification; and alteration in the punishment was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; when there was sufficient material to prove the charge against respondents for the alleged acts of omissions and commissions; and whether they could not be given benefit for their acts of omissions and commissions, considering that respondents had admitted their acts of omissions and commissions in respect of the charges levelled against them.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
These civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment, dated 3-8-2004 in Appeals Nos.294(K)C.S. of 2002 (filed by Syed Muzammil Hussain), 295(K)CS of 2002 (filed by Abdul Malik) and No.296(K)CS of 2002 (filed by Syed Qamar Abbas), passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, at Islamabad, whereby the said appeals were partly allowed and the impugned orders were set aside and the respondents were reinstated in service, whereby major penalty of removal from service was modified and converted into minor penalty of stoppage of three increments for three years without cumulative effect and the intervening period was treated as leave of the kind due.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are said to be employees of the petitioners-Department and during period -of their posting at the said branch, they while posted as cashier and clerks respectively in the said branch made certain cuttings/over-writings and alterations in the record and also withdrew certain amount from the Government treasury and thereby embezzled huge amount when principal culprit Syed Furqan Raza confessed and admitted his guilt in his statement, dated 10-5-2000 before the Investigating Committee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Federal Service Tribunal has not appreciated the material on record so also not applied the law in true perspective and has arrived at wrong conclusion and has taken sympathetic view in deciding the matter.
4. We find that a case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Accordingly we grant leave to appeal inter alia to consider as to whether modification and alteration in punishment awarded under Ordinance No.XVII of 2000 could not have been made by the Service Tribunal which modification and alteration in the punishment was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when there being sufficient material to prove, the charges against the respondents for the acts of omissions and commissions, therefore, they could not be given benefits for their acts of omissions and commissions, considering that the respondents have admitted their acts of omissions and commissions in respect of the charges levelled against them.