Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition

for Special Leave to Appeal No. 43‑R of 1982, decided on 29th May, 1982.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑‑ Art.

185 (3) and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rulers, r. 7‑Re‑instatement‑inquiry report not shown to petitioner Appellant deemed to have not been given reasonable opportunity of defence‑Removal order set aside and appellant deemed to have been re‑instated in service from date of removal.

Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W. F. P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176 ref.

Munir A.

Shaikh, D. A.‑G. instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Atiq ur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of

hearing : 29th May, 1982.

.‑This is a petition against the judgment and order dated the 22nd December, 1981 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 83‑P of 1979.

2. Respondent Abdul Razzaq joined the service as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Financial Adviser (Air Force) on 24‑9‑1966 and was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk on

18‑12‑1972 and later on as Assistant on 29‑5‑1976. The same year some adverse entries were recorded in his A. C. R. by his immediate superior. He made a representa tion for the expunction of the adverse remarks, which was turned down. On 15‑8‑1977 he was served with a charge‑sheet and was asked to explain the charges detailed therein, and at the same time the Controller of Accounts (Air Force) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the respondent. The Inquiry Officer after holding the inquiry and giving full opportunity to the respondent to participate in the proceedings, submitted his report but a copy thereof was not provided to the appellant.

3. The respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment holding:

"Since the inquiry report was not shown to the appellant, he did no know anything about adverse findings of the inquiry report. The appellant would, therefore, be deemed not to have been given a reasonable opportunity of defence. These mandatory requirements of taw having been ignored, the appellant shall be deemed to have been re‑instated in service with effect from the date be was removed from service. However, the respondents have the option of proceeding against the appellant afresh if they so desire after satisfying the require ments of law which had been earlier overlooked."

4. As the principle laid down in the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N: W. F. P. Government (PLD1981SC 176) has been correctly followed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment, we do not consider there is any force in this petition, which is, consequently, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.