Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN VS Respondent: CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHIHonorable Justice Syed Ally Madad ShahAbdul Sattar Mughal,Niaz Ahmad Khan
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 824
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Syed Ali Madad Shah, Chairman and Rasheeduddin Arshad, Member
ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN
Versus
CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS KARACHI and others
Appeal No. 65(K) of 1986, decided on 28th February, 1989.
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
----R.4---Removal from service---Appeal---Counsel for appellant not pressing appeal on merit but stating that co-accused employee who was also involved alongwith appellant was dealt with leniently and was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments whereas appellant was awarded punishment of removal from service---Counsel for respondent Government department stated that since allegations were of similar nature, appellant could also be dealt with like co-accused---Order was passed accordingly.
Abdul Sattar Mughal for Appellant.
Niaz Ahmad Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989.
JUDGMENT
SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---The learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits but he submits that the appellant was subjected to the punishment of removal from service whereas one Feroz Alam, Inspector, who also was involved alongwith the appellant was dealt with leniently and he was imposed the punishment of stoppage of only four increments as admitted in the written objections/parawise comments filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the appellant also could be dealt with like Feroz Alam, Inspector, as the allegations were of similar nature. We allow the appeal to the extent that the punishment of removal from service awarded on the appellants under order dated 14-5-1985 shall stand modified to that of stoppage of his four increments. We would further order that the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits as admissible.
M.Y.H./566/Sr.F. Appeal allowed.