Order of dismissal
Order of dismissal legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Civil Judge (appellant) was dismissed from service by the competent authority/Chief Justice of the High Court vide order dated 9-3-2000
Said order was conveyed to the Civil Judge in question on 23-3-2000, and he filed an appeal before the Chief Justice of the High Court, which appeal was returned for proper presentation before the forum having jurisdiction in the matter
Civil Judge thereafter filed a representation before the Governor, which remained undecided and after a lapse of three months he filed a fresh appeal before the Tribunal on 19-7-2000 in terms of S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991
Said appeal was dismissed as being time barred
Contentions on behalf of Civil Judge were that in terms of S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 the remedy of representation was usable before the authority next above the authority which had made the dismissal order; that Governor of the province was the authority above the Chief Justice of the High Court, who had passed the dismissal order, therefore, representation before the Governor was competent and a validly invoked remedy, which was not decided within 90 days, constraining him to avail his right of (fresh) appeal, which was filed within time
Validity
Chief Justice of the High Court in his capacity as the competent authority had passed the dismissal order dated 9-3-2000, therefore, he (Chief Justice) had no authority to hear the appeal
Appeal filed before the Chief Justice of the High Court was neither competently instituted nor filed before the forum having jurisdiction, therefore, said appeal was returned via a letter, which never communicated that Civil Judge in question should avail any remedy of representation before the Governor in terms of S.21 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
Opting to approach the Governor instead of approaching the Tribunal within time, was the Civil Judge's own deed or comprehension of the law
Remedy under S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was only available before the authority next above the authority which made the order; the Governor of a province by no stretch of the constitutional scheme or interpretation of any provision of the Constitution or the law on the subject could be held to be an authority next above the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court
Representation filed by civil judge before the Governor was not within the purview and contemplation of S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 read with S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, therefore, 90 days' time period was not available to the civil judge as envisaged under S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991
Dismissal order was passed on 9-3-2000 and conveyed to the civil judge in question on 23-3-2000, therefore, appeal filed before the Tribunal on 19-7-2000 was filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. thirty days
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Civil Judge (appellant) was dismissed from service by the competent authority/Chief Justice of the High Court vide order dated 9-3-2000
Said order was conveyed to the Civil Judge in question on 23-3-2000, and he filed an appeal before the Chief Justice of the High Court, which appeal was returned for proper presentation before the forum having jurisdiction in the matter
Civil Judge thereafter filed a representation before the Governor, which remained undecided and after a lapse of three months he filed a fresh appeal before the Tribunal on 19-7-2000 in terms of S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act, 1991
Said appeal was dismissed as being time barred
Contentions on behalf of Civil Judge were that in terms of S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 the remedy of representation was usable before the authority next above the authority which had made the dismissal order; that Governor of the province was the authority above the Chief Justice of the High Court, who had passed the dismissal order, therefore, representation before the Governor was competent and a validly invoked remedy, which was not decided within 90 days, constraining him to avail his right of (fresh) appeal, which was filed within time
Validity
Chief Justice of the High Court in his capacity as the competent authority had passed the dismissal order dated 9-3-2000, therefore, he (Chief Justice) had no authority to hear the appeal
Appeal filed before the Chief Justice of the High Court was neither competently instituted nor filed before the forum having jurisdiction, therefore, said appeal was returned via a letter, which never communicated that Civil Judge in question should avail any remedy of representation before the Governor in terms of S.21 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
Opting to approach the Governor instead of approaching the Tribunal within time, was the Civil Judge's own deed or comprehension of the law
Remedy under S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was only available before the authority next above the authority which made the order; the Governor of a province by no stretch of the constitutional scheme or interpretation of any provision of the Constitution or the law on the subject could be held to be an authority next above the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court
Representation filed by civil judge before the Governor was not within the purview and contemplation of S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 read with S.21(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, therefore, 90 days' time period was not available to the civil judge as envisaged under S.5(a) of Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991
Dismissal order was passed on 9-3-2000 and conveyed to the civil judge in question on 23-3-2000, therefore, appeal filed before the Tribunal on 19-7-2000 was filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. thirty days
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
"Order of dismissal", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939239
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Order of dismissal"
P L D 1963 Dacca 665
A. S. M. SHAMSUL ALAM CHOWDHURY‑ — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents
Court:1986 P L C (C
Dr. MUHAMMAD ASIF BHATTI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE
Court: Federal Service Tribunal1990 S C M R 538
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF QURESHI-‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court1972 P L C 353
REHMAT ALI Versus THE MANAGER, LAHORE AUTOS, LAHORE
Court: Punjab Labour Court1976 P L C 156
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 4 OTHERS Versus FAUJI TEXTILE MILLS AND OTHERS
Court: High CourtPLD 1990 Supreme Court 712
ABDUL RAUF‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others‑ ‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ Ss.2(b) & 4 ‑‑‑ Civil servant ‑‑‑ Definition ‑‑‑ Appeal ‑‑‑ Two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against civil servant ‑‑‑ Authority, in respect of one proceedings by an order dated 18‑7‑1987 directed that civil servant should be compulsorily retired from service and as a result of the second proceedings by an order dated 6‑1‑1988 ordered his dismissal from service ‑‑‑ Service Tribunal, on appeal by the civil servant took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18‑7‑1987, he had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from that date of the order, consequently appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Service Tribunal‑‑‑ .Hold" order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the person was still a civil servant, therefore, Service Tribunal could not decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant‑‑"Civil servant includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province and definition was wide enough to cover the case of such a civil servant.‑‑ Words and phrases.1996 P L C 261
SARWAR SHAH Versus Messrs B.P. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh1994 P L C (C
Raja MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus CHAIRMAN, B.I.&S.E. and others
Court: Lahore High Court1995 P L C 675
LAL KHAN Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1995 P L C 530
Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAH and 4 others Versus MANAGER, PERVAIZ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab