Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 37‑R of 1985, decided on 12th April, 1986.

(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 14‑11‑1984 passed in Appeal No. 385(R) of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Petitioner who was dismissed from service as a result of disciplinary action contending that no show‑cause notice was served upon him indicating how and as to what extent charges were, held, proved against him‑‑Petitioner also allegedly not supplied copy of enquiry report and not afforded a personal hearing‑‑Substantial questions of law of public importance arising in case which required an authoritative pronouncement‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider questions.

Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W.F.P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176; Abdur Razaq v. Secretary Finance and 2 others 1982 P L C (C S) 203 and S.M. Hayat v. Federal Service Tribunal and others C.P.S.L.A. No. 464‑K of 1983 rel.

Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

The petitioner, a civil servant, whose appeal against an order of dismissal from service was dismissed, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 14‑11‑1984.

2. The petitioner was employed as chargeman, Inspectorate Army Stores and Clothing, Karachi, when he was departmentally proceeded against on two charges, one of receiving illegal gratification and the other of having deposited on detection of it and making a written confession before the Field Security Team. An enquiry was held. He was found guilty and dismissed from service. He appealed against the dismissal order and being unsuccessful he brought it before the Service Tribunal. The grievance was that he was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report, he was not afforded a personal hearing which he had asked for and part of the evidence against him was recorded in his absence and no second show‑cause notice was served on him indicating how and as to what extent the charges were held proved. He also sought to avoid the so‑called written confession on the ground that it was obtained by pressure and duress and he had filed a criminal complaint with regard to the events relating thereto. The Service Tribunal accepting factual part of the grounds advanced by the petitioner considered that the petitioner was in no way prejudiced by the omissions or irregularities pointed out by him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of a second show‑cause notice was mandatory requirement of law as held in Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W.F.P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176 and that the omission to supply the copy of the enquiry report had necessarily the effect of prejudicing the petitioner in his defence and this was the view that the Tribunal itself had held in Abdur Razaq v. Secretary Finance and 2 others 1982 P L C (C S) 203. The learned counsel also contended that arising out of the same occurrence other employees were also similarly proceeded against and in one of such cases, i.e., S.M. Hayat v. Federal Service Tribunal and others (C.P.S.L.A. No. 464‑K of 1983), leave has already been granted by this Court.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that substantial questions of law of public importance do arise in the case and they require authoritative pronouncement. Leave is, therefore, granted. The record of the inquiry and the appeal within the Department should be made available at the hearing.

M. Y. M. 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.