Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 313 of 1979, decided on 13th December; 1979.
------R. 6(1)‑Suspension‑Extension‑To be made after every three months‑Second order issued much after expiry of three months and not covering intervening period‑Order, held, defective and could be issued by "Authorised Officer" after obtaining approval of "Authority" and not by "Authority" itself.
This is an appeal by Ch. Mohammad Ishaq, against the order dated 31‑3‑1979 passed by Member, Board of Revenue placing the appellant under suspension.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Tehsildar in Sheikhupura Tehsil since 15‑8‑1978. On 31‑3‑1979 the appellant was placed under suspension by the order of Board of Revenue on the grounds of alleged gross misconduct and inefficiency. The appellant submitted a representation to the Adviser on 28‑4‑79 to which he has received no reply.
3. The contention of the appellant is that suspension should be resorted to only when an imposition of major penalty (See letter No. S. O. R. I. (S. & G. A. D.) 1‑16/76 dated 10‑7‑78 Annexure C' to this appeal) keeping in view of the gravity of the allegation, may be necessary. Moreover, suspension should continue beyond three months only where it is necessary. In this case, the appellant had been under suspension for a period of about nine months.
4. We have seen the order of suspension and the second order by which the period of suspension has been extended. The second order is defective on two counts; namely, it is issued on 7th October, 1979 and it does not show how interim period after the first three months of suspension is covered as it speaks of continuation of suspension for a further period of three months from the date of the issue of the orders. Moreover, the order is issued by the Member, Board of Revenue himself as the "Authority". The legal position as reflected in rule 6(i), E & D Rules, 1975 is that the order is to be issued and subsequently extended by the Authorized Officer" of course after obtaining the approval of the "Authority" but not by the "Authority" itself. For these reasons the order of suspension of the appellant is set aside and the appeal is accepted.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer