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. 645 of 1980, decided on 5th October, 1985.
‑‑‑R. 9 [prior to amendment vide Notification No. SORI (S&GAD) 1‑55/81, dated 1‑4‑1982]‑‑Action pursuant to conviction by Court‑‑Rule 9 divests the Authority of powers instead of empowering it to take action‑‑Government servant convicted by Summary Military Court Services terminated by competent authority for that reason‑‑Termination order, in circumstances, held, void.
Ch. Abdul Khaliq for Appellant.
Manzoor Hussain, Special Government Pleader for Respondents.
‑In this case Faqir Muhammad, who was working as Head Mali in the Services Hospital, is aggrieved against the order dated 9‑2‑1980 issued by the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital terminating the appellant's services with effect from 29‑11‑1979. An appeal to the Secretary Health was rejected on 27‑9‑1980.
2. The action against the appellant was taken under rule 9(a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, on the ground that he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.500 by the Summary Military Court No. 37, Lahore, on the charge of slaughtering an animal without the requisite licence and selling its meat at more than the controlled rate.
3. The parties were heard. Without going into the merits of then case we find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. instead of empowering the authority to take the action taken by it, A actually divests it of that power. For this we refer to our detailed discussion of the matter in the case of Azam Khalil v. Government of Punjab in Appeal No. 281 of 1981 decided on 1‑10‑1981. In view of our finding in the above‑cited case we hold that the impugned order in the instant case was void, irregular and without any legal effect.
4. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the appellant is re‑instated in his post as if his services had never been terminated. He will be entitled to all back benefits like pay, allowances etc. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
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