2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. SAMINA NAZEER Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), KHANEWAL and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAMINA NAZEER Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), KHANEWAL and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. SAMINA NAZEER Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), KHANEWAL and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M.S. Shad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 2003.
- 3. Heard Ch. M.S. Shahid, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended that no punishment could have been awarded without holding regular inquiry to prove the allegations of bogus appointment letter, fake transfer order and fake joining report. It is also urged with vehemence that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were not only vague and ambiguous but remained unsubstantiated.
- 4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner. The judgment impugned has been perused and record examined. The learned Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record has concluded with cogent reasoning petitioner's name was not included in the merit list of order and joining report were also fake and fabricated fraud and forgery being question of fact has been determined ~by the department on the basis of relevant record, affirmed by the learners Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record, hardly warrants any interference. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that in absence of regular inquiry the services of petitioner could not have been terminated for the reason that the Competent Authority can dispense withholding of such inquiry under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline ) Rules, 1975. The allegations levelled against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of documentary evidence and therefore, any regular inquiry was not necessary.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 31‑10‑2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.3592 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑Rr.4(1)(b)(iv) & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑ Termination of service without holding regular inquiry‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant's name was not included in the merit list of selected candidates‑‑ Transfer order and joining report of civil servant were fake and fabricated ‑‑‑Factum of fraud and forgery being a question of fact had been determined by authority on the basis of relevant record and affirmed by Service Tribunal after perusing entire record would not warrant any interference‑‑‑Competent Authority could dispense with holding of regular inquiry under R.6 of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑Allegations levelled against civil servant had been proved on basis of documentary evidence, thus, regular inquiry was not necessary‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. M.S. Shad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18‑10‑2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 12‑5‑1999 whereby her services were terminated has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner on account of unsigned first joining report, doubtful relinquished report and fake transfer order, her services were terminated on 12‑5‑1999. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal and preferred an appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned.
3. Heard Ch. M.S. Shahid, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended that no punishment could have been awarded without holding regular inquiry to prove the allegations of bogus appointment letter, fake transfer order and fake joining report. It is also urged with vehemence that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were not only vague and ambiguous but remained unsubstantiated.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner. The judgment impugned has been perused and record examined. The learned Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record has concluded with cogent reasoning petitioner's name was not included in the merit list of order and joining report were also fake and fabricated fraud and forgery being question of fact has been determined ~by the department on the basis of relevant record, affirmed by the learners Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record, hardly warrants any interference. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that in absence of regular inquiry the services of petitioner could not have been terminated for the reason that the Competent Authority can dispense withholding of such inquiry under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline ) Rules, 1975. The allegations levelled against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of documentary evidence and therefore, any regular inquiry was not necessary.
5. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being well abased does not warrant any interference. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./S‑327/SC Leave refused.