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. 544 of 1983, decided on 8th December, 1983.
‑‑‑R. 7‑‑Dismissal‑‑Appellant dismissed from service without affording personal hearing‑‑Appeal decided by same person who passed original order of dismissal‑‑Procedure declared absolutely illegal‑‑Tribunal set aside order as without lawful authority with directions to re‑instate appellant into service and proceed afresh strictly under Rules.
Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa for Appellant.
.‑‑The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded as respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 26‑5‑1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, dated 29‑8‑1981 passed by D.I.G. Sargodha and order, dated 25‑8‑1983 passed by Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was detailed on duty to Rawalpindi and had to reach at Police Station at 6‑00 a. m. whereas the appellant reached at about 9‑00 a.m. In this manner the appellant was considered late for three hours. A show‑cause notice was served to him. The appellant replied the show‑cause notice but was considered unsatisfactory. He was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal before the D.I.‑G. Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was turned down. A revision petition was also made before the I.‑G. Police Punjab, Lahore but was rejected.
4. The case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
5. The appellant's counsel has submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the appellant has not been heard in person by the respondent No.
1. He has further pointed out that the D.I.G. Sargodha Range, Sargodha was the same person who had already passed orders as being respondent No. 1. In view of above it was vehemently argued that the appellate order suffers from ab initio illegality as nobody can be judge in his own cause. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1 without affording him any opportunity of personal hearing as well.
6. In view of the circumstances of this case we convert the appeal into regular hearing and proceed to decide the case on law points only.
7. The fact of the matter is that it was incumbent on the part of the respondent No. 1 to give personal hearing to the appellant in view of the settled law that nobody could be condemned without being heard. In this case also the respondent No. 2 has become judge in his own cause which is absolutely illegal and such like procedure cannot be I allowed. In view of these two illegal acts, we set aside the impugned orders as the same are without lawful authority. The result is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the respondents are directed to re‑instate the appellant in service so as to confer upon him the status of civil servant and to proceed afresh against the appellant, strictly under the provisions of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
M.I.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer