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. 307 of 1978, decided on 3rd February 1980.
‑‑ S. 4‑Compulsory retirement‑Past record indicating censure and reversion due to misconduct‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal.
Muhammad Sharif, appellant, while working as A. S. I. received a show‑cause notice dated 27‑10‑1977 issued by S. P., Gujrat. The appellant submitted a reply. He appeared before the S. P. on 8‑11‑1977. The S. P. vide his order dated 7‑11‑1977 imposed the major 'penalty of compulsory retirement. The appeal preferred against the order to the D. I.‑G., Rawalpindi was rejected by him vide order dated 27‑9‑1978.
2. The parties have been heard. The appellant has prayed that the order of compulsory retirement be set aside on the ground that the order was mainly based on Annexure A' of the show‑cause notice. Punishments Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in Annexure A' has been conceded in the written statement as not being the basis of the order. This leaves only the A. C. R. for 1976. Moreover, the appellant alleges that the Screening Committee was headed by the D. I. G. who was later instrumental in getting the show cause notice issued. The appellant was not confronted with, the adverse reports on the basis of which he was recommended for retirement by the Screening Committee but there is no denying the fact that the A. C. R. of the appellant for the year 1976 was adverse. Moreover, the pay of the appellant was reduced in 1970 as a penalty for making a false statement and reverted in 1971. The censure awarded in 1976 cannot be also overlooked. In view of this there are no good grounds for interfering with the order of retirement and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer