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.
Case No. 395/403 of 1983, decided on 3rd September, 1984.
‑‑‑R. 9 [as amended vide Notification No. SORT (S & G A D) 1‑55/81, dated 1‑4‑1982]‑‑Disciplinary action due to conviction by Court‑‑Show -cause notice‑‑Mandatory‑‑Dismissal order passed without show‑cause notice and opportunity of personal hearing ‑Impugned dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority with direction to issue show‑cause notice after clothing appellant with status of civil servant to fulfil mandatory provisions of rules.
Masud Ahmad for Appellant.
A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
.‑‑ Munawar Hussain, ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Faisalabad as well as Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, as respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7‑5‑1983 whereby the respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal against the order of dismissal dated 23‑10‑1982, passed against the appellant by respondent No.l. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and in consequence thereof he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 23‑10‑1982, by respondent No.1. He filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad who was pleased to direct that his appeal be kept pending till the decision of Lahore High Court where the appellant had filed appeal against his conviction order. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is incomplete contravention of provisions of rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the rules envisage after these have been so amended, that even if a person in convicted by a Court of Law, show‑cause notice is a must before some action is taken against him. It has been vehemently argued that the record of the case reveals that no such notice was served on the appellant which is in completely violation of the mandatory Rules.
5. On the other hand learned District. Attorney after going through the record of this case has conceded to the Tribunal that no notice was served on the appellant as required by rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, and subsequently amended.
6. In view of the above we have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order as violative of the mandatory provision of rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, as amended, and direct respondent No. 1 to issue a show‑cause notice in the name of the appellant and afford him opportunity of personal hearing before some order is passed.
7. As the appellant is a dismissed civil servant he is to be clothed with the status of a civil servant to fulfil the mandatory provisions of Rules. The appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to proceed in the light of the observation in the preceding paragraphs. The fate of the period of his absence will also be determined by the authority itself while deciding his case.
A. E.
Appeal accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer