Find a Lawyer

SHIBLI FAROOQUI versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Rr 4 (1) (b) & 5 (1) (iv) Removal from the Service Authorized Officer is not recommended Impact inquiry against technical staff Two steps against salary for a two-year period against a civil servant But the competent authority fined the removal of the service, ignoring the recommendations of the competent officer for the post of Auditor General of Pakistan. Ignored and severely penalized for removal from service if authority was not incurred. In order to agree with the finding of the authorized officer, the affected public servant had to record the appropriate reasons for doing so after taking notice of the public power he could not use arbitrarily or the competent authority did not comply with the recommendations of the authorized officer. No reason was recorded. Accusations against a civil servant who were dismissed for being irresponsible and uncertain are in place, they cannot be allowed to go either way. The Supreme Court reinstated the civil servant with benefits and remanded the matter to the competent authority to refer to the competent authority to decide whether it could be found to be competent, imposed in the interest of justice. Should the appeal be allowed

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Education Department, Peshawar v. QASIM SHAH 2009 PLC(CS) 608
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. JAFFAR HUSSAIN 2009 CLD 610
• INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN v. MUHAMMAD AYUB STONE CRUSHERS 2009 SCMR 611
• MUHAMMAD HANIF v. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 2009 SCMR 615
• Mst. NAGINA BEGUM v. Mst. TAHZIM AKHTAR 2009 SCMR 623
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR RANA v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2009 PLC(CS) 627
• HAQ NAWAZ v. MUHAMMAD KABIR 2009 SCMR 630
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN v. TAHIR LATIF 2009 PLC(CS) 634

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

best advocate from Rahimyar Khan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes