Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR ALI VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SARGODHAHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMID KHAN
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 490
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
ZULFIQAR ALI
versus
ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SARGODHA and 2 others
Appeal No. 248 of 1989, decided on 22nd December, 1990.
(a) Civil service-
---- Dismissal from service---Civil servant who was dismissed from service, admittedly neither was supplied a copy of enquiry report nor was asked to show cause against proposed penalty through a second show-cause notice--- Authority had not given any plausible explanation for not providing opportunity to civil servant for putting up his defence against penalty intended to be imposed on him---Even though provision regarding supply of copy of enquiry report, was not mandatory or a statutory requirement, but same could be enforced on ground of fairness and avoidance of prejudice---Failure on part of Authority to provide a copy of enquiry report as also opportunity to civil servant to produce his defence against proposed punishment, was a serious and material deficiency which had vitiated proceedings against civil servant, as such failure amounted to denial of natural justice to him and had prevented civil servant from knowing basis or grounds on which enquiry officer had based his findings and thus had seriously handicapped civil servant in producing hip defence adequately.
Mir Muhammad v. N: W.F.P. Government PLD 1981 SC 176; Faiz Muhammad Malik v. The Director, Food, Punjab 1988 PLC (C.S.) 325 and Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. Government of Sindh 1982 PLC (C.S.) 582 ref.
(b) Civil service---
----Dismissal from service---Civil servant who was dismissed from service after departmental proceedings against him, had contended that charges both in criminal proceedings in criminal Court and departmental proceedings against him were same and since he was acquitted by Court in criminal proceedings no basis remained for departmental proceedings on same charges---Contention was repelled being fallacious in view of the fact that it was not a case of double jeopardy because two proceedings were quite different in substance and result.
Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector 1989 SCMR 316 ref.
Shaukat Hussain Baloch for Appellant.
Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th October, 1990.