1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AKBAR KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzaor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AKBAR KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another |
| Primary Law | Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzaor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AKBAR KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Riazul Haque instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th March 1995.
- Sheikh Riazul Haque instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 22-6-1994 passed in Appeal No. 389(R) of 1993):
R. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Dismissal from service on charge of misconduct
Civil servant, during pendency of appeal before Service Tribunal moved application for permission to amend memorandum of appeal in order to take additional grounds therein
Service Tribunal without deciding application for amendment of memorandum of appeal, dismissed civil servant's appeal
Leave to appeal was granted to consider; whether civil servant after post-remand proceedings was entitled to opportunity of personal hearing by Authorised Officer and the Authority as well; whether by not giving opportunity of personal hearing to civil servant, reasonable opportunity to defend himself had not been denied to him; and whether Tribunal was legally justified in deciding appeal without first disposing of application for amendment of memorandum of appeal filed by civil servant.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March 1995. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J: ‑ This petition for leave to appeal arises from the facts that Akbar Khan petitioner was working as Assistant Incharge in the Office of the Federal Service Tribunal. On the charge of accepting illegal gratification, an enquiry was held against him. He was charge sheeted. He was given final Show‑Cause Notice and personal hearing by the concerned officers. At the stage of personal hearing by the Authority (Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal), the case was remanded for fresh enquiry. After the remand, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Authorised Officer who forwarded it to the Authority. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 20‑7‑1993. Feeling ‑aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal he moved application for permission to amend the Memorandum of Appeal in order to take additional grounds therein. The Service Tribunal, however, without deciding his application for amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal, has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 22‑6‑1994. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that after the remand no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Authorised Officer or by the Authority and he has been dismissed from service simply on the report of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel has further contended that although the petitioner had moved an application for amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal in order to add more grounds therein but the learned Tribunal has just ignored the application and has decided the appeal without disposing of the aforesaid application.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to appeal is granted to consider.‑‑ (i) Whether after remand the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authorised Officer and the Authority as well? (ii) Whether by not giving him the opportunity of personal hearing the reasonable opportunity to defend himself has not been denied to the petitioner? and (iii) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal without first disposing of the application for the amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioner. AA./A‑1354/S Leave granted.