Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BALAGHAT HUSSAIN VS Respondent: DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANHonorable Justice Shah Abdur Rashid
1985 P L C (C
1985 P L C (C. S.) 1114
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Justice Shah‑Abdur Rashid, Chairman and A.O. Raziur Rahman, Member
BALAGHAT HUSSAIN
versus
DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Appeal No. 376 (L) of 1983, decided on 19th September, 1984.
(a) Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Dismissal from service without inquiry‑‑Allegations in charge‑sheet denied by employee‑‑Such allegations required evidence to establish charge against employee‑‑Action of Authority in dispensing with inquiry, held, was not justified.
(b) Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑None of allegations made against employee in show‑cause notice, held, was established from record‑‑Appeal against dismissal accepted and employee re‑instated in service from date of dismissal with consequential benefits.
Asmat Kamal Khan for Appellant.
Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th September, 1984.
JUDGMENT
SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant was serving as L.D.C. in the Directorate of Registration at Lahore, when he was served with the following show‑cause notice, dated 31‑3‑1983:‑
(i) You remained unauthorisedly absent from duty, w.e.f. 7‑3‑1983 to 12‑3‑1983.
(ii) You and Mr. Masoom Ali, Senior Assistant, District Registration Office, Lahore were involved in a case of issuance of bogus Identity Card bearing Serial No. AK‑524983 and a case was registered against both of you under section 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. with the F.I.A. by Malik Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director R.R.O., Lahore. Due to this you were annoyed with Malik Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director and on 24‑3‑1983, you entered the R.R.O. building, Lahore and raised objectionable slogans.
(iii) You tried to instigate the staff of R.R.O., Lahore against Malik Ahmed‑Khan, Deputy Director.
(iv) You also smoked cigarette full of Charas in the office premises on 24‑3-1983.
The appellant in his reply denied the allegations. However, by order, dated 31‑5‑1983 he was dismissed from service. He filed a departmental appeal on 19‑6‑1983, but did not receive any reply. Finally, he has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. In relation to the last item of the charge, the appellant stated that he is not a smoker at all, and that the allegation that he was smoking cigarette full of Charas, is without any basis. The learned counsel for respondent, however admitted that there is nothing on record to establish this allegation.
3. As far as the other allegations are concerned all of them had been vehemently denied by the appellant. All these allegations require evidence to establish and the action of the Authority in dispensing with the inquiry was not justified.
4. As regards the first charge, we find that the appellant did actually file .an application on 13‑3‑1983, for leave, but this was never rejected. The two other charges, as already stated, require recording of evidence and without such record no finding can be given against the appellant.
5. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that none of the allegations made against the appellant in the show‑cause notice is established from the available record. We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and reinstate him into service from the date he was dismissed with consequential benefits.
A.A.????
Appeal accepted.