Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1984, decided on 21st October, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31‑10‑1983, passed in Appeal No. 596(K) of 1974).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Martial Law Regulation [C M.L.A.'s] No.114‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.13‑‑Retirement from service under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 set aside by Service Tribunal and employee re‑instated allowing him consequential benefits‑‑Held, there being only one adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report and thereafter employee having successfully completed probation period and confirmed against his new post, it could be assumed that he had removed defect pointed out in his A. C. R.‑‑Impugned order being unexceptionable as no valid ground existed to order retirement was upheld, and appeal dismissed.
Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney‑General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
Bashirullah, Deputy A.‑G. (N.‑W.F.P.) for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 1986.
The Federation of Pakistan through the present appeal has impugned the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31‑10‑1983, whereby the appeal of Nazir Ahmad Swati respondent was accepted and he was ordered to be re‑instated in service with immediate effect with all the consequential benefits thereof.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that Nazir Ahmad Swati respondent was initially appointed by the Government of N.‑W.F.P. as Civil Judge on 28‑11‑1962 and was confirmed on 15‑6‑1970. He was promoted to the post of Senior Civil Judge on 22‑7‑1970 when in the meantime he was selected by the Central Public Service Commission and was appointed as Deputy Registrar of the Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, on 8‑9‑1970. During his service in the Federal Government on 18th April, 1972 he was retired from service under Martial .Law Regulation No.114 which was challenged by him by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal. On objection being taken that the respondent was not a civil servant within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, his appeal was dismissed on 16‑7‑1975 on the question of lack of jurisdiction by the Service Tribunal‑. He challenged the finding of the Service Tribunal in this Civil Appeal No. K‑109 of 1976 which was accepted on 23‑2‑1983 the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the afresh in accordance with law. The matter was then seized by the Federal Service Tribunal which accepted the appeal through the impugned judgment, hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. As the case stands we are of the view that the order of Service Tribunal is unexceptionable because no valid ground exists to order the retirement of the respondent. There appears to be only one entry in his annual confidential report for the year1969 while serving as Civil Judge with the Government of N.W.F.P., wherein it was recorded that the respondent did not appear outwardly living within his means and he was directed to remove this defect. This matter remained under correspondence for a considerably long time when finally the prayer of the respondent for the expunction of the adverse remarks was turned down.
4. We have been informed by the learned. Deputy Attorney- General that the appointment of the respondent in the Ministry of Commerce was one year s probation which he successfully completed and was confirmed. The learned Deputy Attorney-General further submitted that during the rest of his service, no adverse report was recorded against him. In view of the above it can be assumed that the respondent has removed the defect reported by the Frontier Government in 1969. Under the circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed on the ground other than the formulated in the leave granting order. It may also be pointed out that no other point was urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant.
M.I. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer