Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Dr. QAMAR SARWAR RANA VS Respondent: CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHOREHonorable Justice Riaz KayaniDr. Ehsan ul Haq,Khadim Hussain Sindhu
2005 P L C (C
2005 P L C (C. S.) 804
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Justice (Retd.) Riaz Kayani, Chairman
Dr. QAMAR SARWAR RANA
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Appeal No. 2939 of 2003, decided on 18th March, 2004.
Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.1(3), 3, 9, 10 & 11‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, Rr.3 & 4‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Appellant who was dismissed from service filed review petition, but said review petition having not been attended to by the competent Authority, appellant filed appeal before Service Tribunal after expiry of statutory period‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings against appellant under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 were launched at the time when Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already been promulgated‑‑‑Provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 having overriding effect under S.11 of the Ordinance, proceedings against appellant under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1999 were illegal‑‑ Authority concerned was directed to launch proceedings against appellant under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and further that if proceedings had commenced, Authorities would proceed strictly in accordance with law and should be taken to its logical conclusion by speaking order to be passed by Competent Authority.
Dr. Ehsan ul Haq for the Appellant.
Khadim Hussain Sindhu District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 2004.
JUDGMENT
Appellant is aggrieved by the order of his dismissal dated 13‑9‑2003 passed by Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, authority, arraigned as respondent No.2. The review petition was filed before respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which was not attended to. As appellant received no information, therefore, after the expiry of the statutory period, resort was made to the instant appeal for the redressal of his grievance.
2. During the hearing of the appeal, it transpired from the comments submitted by respondent No.2, in particular para. 5 of the comments which is reproduced for facility of reference:‑‑
"It is admitted that the appellant has been awarded major penalty of dismissal from service. Regarding pendency of his Review Petition before the respondent No. 1, it is submitted that the case has been remanded by him to the respondent No.2 for further necessary action with the following observations:‑‑
(i) The Punjab Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 was promulgated on 18‑9‑2000. Disciplinary proceedings in the instant case were allowed on 17‑4‑2001 i.e. after six months of the promulgation of the Ordinance. Hence, the proceedings/orders passed under E&D Rules, 1999 after 18‑9‑2000 are of no legal effect."
3. The respondent have admitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 were illegal at ‑the time when the authority decided to launch the proceedings i.e. on 17‑4‑2001 as Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 came into being on 18‑9‑2000 and for this reason, while taking up review petition of the appellant, respondent No. 1 directed the respondent No.2 to launch the proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. If the proceedings have commenced, the respondents shall proceed strictly in accordance with law, and should be taken to its logical conclusion by speaking order to be passed by the competent authority. On the other hand, if the proceedings have not yet been commenced, they shall be resorted to immediately, in which, full chance will be given to the appellant to, participate in accordance with law. In any case, order dated 13‑9‑2003 passed by Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab competent authority of the appellant is set aside having been admitted by respondent No. 1 to be illegal. Resultantly appellant shall be reinstated in service and the intervening period between the dismissal from service and reinstatement shall be decided by the competent authority after the close of proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
4. I may express my displeasure about the absence of the departmental representative from the Health Department. He was not present till 10.00 A.M. when this order was being dictated. Registrar of this Tribunal shall transmit copy of this order to the Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab.
H.B.T./10/PST Order accordingly.