Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

HAQ NAWAZ versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN


Servants of Punjab Local Council (Qualification and Discipline) Rules 1981 R 13 Removal from employment due to conviction by military court to avoid seeking notice on show cause notice that it was practically inadequate The effect was not on the record. Notice must be issued under section 13 for any showcase notice issued, action against the applicant, failure

1984 P L C (C. S.) 1322

[Service Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Zafarullah, J

HAQ NAWAZ

versus

COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN

Writ Petition No. 1358‑S of 1982, decided on 21st March, 1983.

Punjab Local Councils (Efficiency and Discipline) Roles, 1981‑

‑‑ R. 13‑Removal from service on account of sentence from Military Court‑Service of show‑cause notice‑To avoid show‑cause notice finding has to be given that same was not practicable‑Find ing to that effect not on record giving of notice necessary No show‑cause notice under S. 13 issued, action taken against petitioner, vitiated.

Athar Rehman Khan for Petitioner.

Syed Afaq Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st March, 1983.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who was working as Tax Inspector, Kabirwala under Zila Council, Multan was sentenced to six months' R. I. by a Summary Military Court. He was, thereafter, removed from service by the Chair man, Zila Council, Multan vide his order, dated 11th March, 1982. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal before the Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed on 22nd August, 1982. The Commissioner observed that a notice under rule 13 of the Punjab Local Council (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981 was necessary but he decided to take no notice of the omission as according to him this was a mere for mality. The petitioner has challenged the orders of his removal in the present writ petition.

2. Rule 13 clearly provides for a show‑cause notice before an order can be passed under that rule. It is true that the notice can be avoided but then a finding has to be given that it is not practicable to give an opportunity to the accused and since there is no such finding on the record it was necessary to give a notice to the petitioner. This omission vitiates the action against the petitioner.

3. In view of the above considerations, the orders of the Chairman Zila Council, dated 11th March, 1982 are declared to be of no legal effect. He is however, at liberty to pass orders in accordance with the rules. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations. No order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous lower court advocate from New Saeedabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.