Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 112 of 1984, decided on 23rd December,1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 5‑1‑1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore in Case No. 484/1902 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 16‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑‑Re instatement and subsequent removal from service‑‑Removal‑‑Salary for intervening period‑‑Entitlement to‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether petitioner was entitled to salary for period from date when he was first removed from service until date when he was re‑instated after order of removal passed against him was found to be invalid, on principles enunciated in an earlier case.

Mrs. Isaac's case P L D 1970 S C 415 ref.

Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1985.

‑The petitioner was removed from service on 17‑5‑1980. However, on appeal to the Service Tribunal. the order of removal was set aside on account of the legal defects in the procedure adopted by the departmental authorities and the case remanded to the Authorised Officer i.e. the Chief Engineer for undertaking fresh proceedings, if so advised, by the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 22‑3‑1982.

The petitioner was thereafter re‑instated on 13‑5‑1982. However, as a result of the fresh proceedings taken, he was again removed from service vide order, dated 28‑7‑1982.

The last mentioned order was again challenged before the Service Tribunal, through an appeal, but on this occasion the appeal failed and the order of removal was upheld vide order, dated 5‑1‑1984. Hence this petition for leave.

Two grounds have been pressed before us in support of this petition: (a) that the order of removal was bad in so far as the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, which were applied to his case, were not applicable to him; and (b) that he was, at least entitled to the salary for the period from 17‑5‑1980, when he was first removed from service until 13‑5‑1982, when he re‑instated after the order of removal (dated 17 5 1980) passed against him was found to be invalid.

There is no force in the first ground. It has not been shown how the application of the disciplinary rules of 1975 assuming that they were not, indeed, applicable and that the earlier rules of 1960 were applicable to the case of the petitioner, has prejudiced his case.

However, there is some force in the second ground, namely, that the petitioner was entitled to the salary for the period between 17‑5‑1980, the date of his removal and 13‑5‑1982 when he was re‑instated on the principles enunciated by this Court in Mrs. Isaac's case P L D 1970 S C 415.

We would grant leave for consideration of the second contention only.

Security Rs.1,000.

The appeal arising out of this petition shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.

Interim order, dated 1-2‑1984 to continue meanwhile.

M.I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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