Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SIALKOT
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 442
[Lahore high Court]
Before Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Syed Jamshed Ali and Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, JJ
MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN
versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SIALKOT
Writ Petitions Nos. 10758, 11611, 11610, 10638 11614,. 10630, .12848, 10756, 10637, 10752, 11628, 11613, 11615, 10821, 10816, 10819, 10817, 13458, 10624, 13457, 10828, 10823,13459, 13456, 10837, 11774, 11776, 11773, 10829, 10825, 10820, 10818, 13455, 10822, 11627, 10755, 10620, 10631,10757, 11617, 11616, 11622,11619, 11620, 11621, 10632, 11623, 11625, 11626, 13818, 10750, 10629, 10636, 11545, 11544, 11543, 11795, 13453, 11793, 11794, 11586, 11582, 10576, 10824, 13905, 10520, 11792, 12364, 10623, 11618, 10754, 10749, 10619, 10621, 11624, 10751, 10622, 10760, 10753, 11542, 11612, 11056, 10432, 10433, 11775, 10836, 10563, 10839, 10562, 10682, 10565, 10840, 10768, 10838, 13556,13558, 11085; 110 2, 11083, 11080,13833, 11705, 11703, 11698, 11717, 13251,12470, 125:'‑1, 12132, 12121, 11735, 11783, 12790, 13392, 13381, 13389, 13390, 13387, 13386, 13382, 13384, 13385, 13388, 13383, 13391, 12715, 12824, 12822, 12825, 12823, 13915, 13914, 13917, 13389, 13400, 13460, 13656, 11557, 13420, 13394, 12615, 13396, 13682, 11449, 11821, 13413, 13395, 14304 of 2001, decided on 15th August, 2001.
(a) Bias‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Concept‑‑‑Opinion expressed by a Judge in a particular case does not constitute bias‑‑‑‑Views formed by a particular Judge in a particular case depend upon circumstances of each case and the assistance rendered by the counsel.
Ghulam Rasool and others v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 62 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v.‑ Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1976 SC 57 distinguished.
Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan and another 1992 SCMR 140 and Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 212(1)(a) & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Matter relating to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Disciplinary action against civil servant‑‑‑Bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Such action is part of terms and conditions of service of civil servant as envisaged in Art.212(1)(a) of the Constitution‑‑Where issue raised in the Constitutional petition is germane to terms and conditions of service of petitioner, any grievance with regard thereto attracts the ouster clause of Art. 212 of the Constitution.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Matter relating to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Interim order, assailing of‑‑‑Jurisdiction of High Court when final order cannot be interfered by High Court, interference in an interim order will manifestly frustrate the object of law‑‑ Even if no final order has been passed, High Court does not have jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution which is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution‑‑‑Provisions of Art.212 of the Constitution have the effect of curtailing jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution in respect of a matter to which the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends.
Federation of Pakistan v. Sh. Abdul Aziz 1998 SCMR 91; Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager Operation PL.D 1990 Lah. 352; Turaj Ahmad Khan v. D.I.‑G. Police, MUltan.PLD 1982 Lab. 464; Ahsan Saleem v. I.G. Police, 1988 PLC ‑(C.S.) 193 and Dr. Ali Sana Shakir Bokhari v. Sabah Mohy‑ud‑Din 2000 PSC 103 distinguished.
Abdul Wahab Khan v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 1989 SC 508; Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1981 Kar. 290 and Abdul Rahim v. Government of Pakistan and others 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1364 ref.
(d) Interpretation of statutes-‑‑
‑‑‑‑ While interpreting provisions of a statute no such construction should be placed which may run counter to the object of tie law or. to render a provision of statute redundant.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
Arts. 247 & 270‑A‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction of Courts‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Ouster contemplated in Arts.247 & 270‑A of the Constitution is total without providing any remedy to an aggrieved person.
(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 225 & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Election dispute‑‑‑Invocation of jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Ouster of jurisdiction under Art.2.25 of the Constitution is implied which has been given effect to by the superior Courts‑‑‑Where a person is disenfrenchized and is, therefore, not in a position to challenge election through election petition such person can competently invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafaz Dastoor v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1263 ref.
(g) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
. ‑‑‑‑Arts. 184(3) & 199‑‑‑Fundamental Rights, enforcement of‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Scope-‑‑Constraint of Art. 199 of the Constitution is not applicable in case of exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Art. 184 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1981 Kar. 2,90 and M: Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another PLD 1980 SC 22 ref.
(h) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212‑‑‑Service Tribunal, jurisdiction of‑‑‑Departmental Authority‑‑‑Distinction‑‑‑For the purposes of jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, distinction has to be drawn between an Authority who is not Departmental Authority and the Authority who is not, competent Departmental Authority‑‑‑Where order was passed by incompetent Departmental Authority, such order was appealable before the Tribunal.
Government of the Punjab and others v. Saleem Hussain Gardezi 1985 SCMR 443 and Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1974 Lah. 545 ref.
(i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 260(2)‑‑‑Act of Provincial Assembly‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Ordinance is included in the definition of an "Act of the Provincial Assembly" under the provisions of the Constitution.
(j) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 128‑‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1999), Preamble‑‑‑Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000), S. 2‑‑ Promulgation of Ordinance by Governor ‑‑‑Vires of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Vires of law could only be challenged on the ground of legislative incompetence or violation of any provision of the Constitution‑‑‑High Court in view of various provisions of Provisional Constitution Order, 1999 was unable to find either the legislative incompetency of the Governor or violation of any provision of the Constitution because with the promulgation of Provisional Constitution Order No.1 of 199, and various orders issued by the Chief Executive the provisions of the Constitution would be deemed to have been altered as even the power to amend the Constitution by the Chief Executive had been recognised by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Governor, in accordance with the provisions of Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1499, was bound to act in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Executive, therefore, the. promulgation of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000) by the Governor was not in violation of Art. 128 of the Constitution.
(k) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Preamble‑‑‑Vires of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, .2000 challenged on the ground that since the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were already in existence there was no justification for promulgation of the Ordinance ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Legislative Authority was not precluded from promulgating any legislative measure even in the occupied field‑‑‑In any case, the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, had brought within its fold the employees of the Corporations of the Punjab Government which otherwise provided a justification for the said Ordinance.
Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar and others PLD 2000 SC 26 ref.
(1) Vires of Legislation‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Vires of legislative measure is not open to the scrutiny of the superior Courts on the alleged ground of mala fides because legislative measures are presumed to be bona fide.
Fauji Foundation and another v. Shamim‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 ref.
(m) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Vires of legislation‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Examination of vires of a law under which action is taken against a civil servant is within the competence of the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity of action against civil servant is required to be determined in the light of the relevant facts and the law applicable thereto‑‑‑Where the Tribunal finds that the law under which action is taken against a civil servant is not validly made, the action taken thereunder can be struck down.
Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1995 SC 66; Fazal Ellahi Ijaz's case PLD 1977 Lah. 549: Iqan Ahmad Khurram v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1980 SC 153; Muhammad Asif v. 'Secretary to the Government of Punjab 1990 PLC (C.S.) 257 and J.B. Chopra and others v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 357 ref.
(n) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212‑‑‑Employees of a Corporation‑‑‑Provisions of Art.212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Where, by virtue of S.10 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, right of appeal has been provided to employees of Corporations of the Punjab Government against, any final order passed under the provisions of the Ordinance, in such cases as well the bar of jurisdiction as contained in Art.212 of the Constitution is applicable as the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal stands enlarged and extends to the grievance of the servants of the Corporations of the Punjab Government‑‑‑Employees of Corporations were deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of Punjab Service Tribunals Act., 1974, and therefore, no separate declaration either in the Civil Servants Act. 1973 or in the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, was required to be made.
(o) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Polders) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑
‑‑-‑Ss. 2 & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973),. Art.190 ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition--- Maintainability-‑‑Employees of Corporation‑‑‑Master and servant relationship‑‑ ‑Provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑In case of the employees of Corporations (WASA, FDA or Social Security Institute etc.), their services were not governed by any statutory rules and in case any action was taken against them, they could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction because their services were governed by the rule of master and servant‑‑‑Remedy provided under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, was in the nature of an inroad on the principle of master and servant.
(p) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 175, 202, 203 & 212‑‑‑Service Tribunal not a parallel judicial system‑‑‑Service Tribunals are constituted under Art.212 of the Constitution‑‑‑To condemn a system as a parallel judicial system it should be one which is not backed by Arts. 175, 202, 203 or 212 of the Constitution‑‑ As appeals against the judgments of the Service Tribunal lie before the Supreme Court under Art.212(3) of the Constitution, the Service. Tribunals are not beyond the judicial system contemplated by the Constitution so as to constitute a. parallel judicial system.
PLD 1998 SC 1455; Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607; Maharram Ali v. Sh. Liaqat Hussain knd others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504 and Jamaat‑I‑Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2000 SC 111 ref.
(q) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.3(3)‑‑‑Chairman of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Qualification‑-‑Sitting Judge of High Court‑‑‑Eligibility threshhold, according to the provisions of S.3(3) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, is that the Chairman should be a person who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court‑‑‑In absence of any specific prohibition, sitting Judge of High Court is not, therefore, excluded from the provision of S.3(3) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
(r) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.3(3)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals‑--(Qualification of Members) Rules, 1978, R.2‑‑‑Appointment of Members of Service Tribunals‑‑ Consultation with Chief Justice of High Court‑‑‑Such appointment as is contemplated by S.3(3) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and the Punjab Service Tribunals (Qualification of Members) Rules, 1978, a Member of the tribunal is to be a person who is not below the, status of the Secretary of the Provincial Government with at least 18 years' sere ice in Grade‑I7 aid above‑‑‑‑Service Tribunal is constituted by law framed under Art.212 of the Constitution and it cannot be inferred from Art.212 of the Constitution or the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 that the Members of the Tribunal should be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court or they should belong to the judicial service.
(s) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 74)‑‑-
‑‑‑‑S.3(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan 11973;. Art.212 ‑‑‑Vires of S.3(3) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 is neither contrary Art.212 of the Constitution nor is in excess of legislative competence of' he Provincial Legislature.
(t) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 3‑A‑‑‑Disposal of cases by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Administration of justice‑‑‑Guidelines to Provincial Government‑‑‑High Court observed that if one Member who belonged to the executive constituted .a Tribunal, it was likely that some cases in which the orders of the Governor or senior officers were attacked, the member might not be able to act fairly, justly and independently, thereby eroding the concept of fair administration of justice‑‑ Object of S.3‑A of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, was to enable the Tribunal to dispose of large number of cases because if every case was required to be heard by the Tribunal as contemplated by S.3 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the disposal of cases before the Tribunal might be retarded‑‑‑High Court being conscious of the fact that the composition of the Tribunal to hear a particular case should be such as to inspire public confidence and ensure that the stream of justice flowed unpolluted advised that the situation where the order before the Tribunal was passed by Governor or by any senior officers could be remedied by the Chairman of the Tribunal by directing distribution of work of the Tribunal in such a manner that such cases were to be heard by Tribunal comprising, inter alia, the Chairman and that the Tribunal should also have equal number of judicial members from amongst the persons qualified to be Judge of High Court and to be appointed after meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court and every Bench should l,e headed by at least one judicial member so as to eliminate any misgiving or apprehension of aggrieved persons as regards the independent working of the Tribunal‑‑‑High Court clarified that the advice was not to be construed as a direction of High Court to legislate but to improve the quality of justice by the Tribunal, the same Was required to be done.
(u) Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.2 & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199' & 212‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Service matter‑‑‑Employees of corporations‑‑‑Show‑cause notices were issued to the petitioners under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Such notices were assailed before High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑-‑Where on account of bar of Art.212 of the Constitution the Constitutional petition was not maintainable, it was not necessary to examine the question as to the maintainability of Constitutional petition against a show‑cause notice or the other grounds of attack‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and 11 others PLD 1970 SC 453; Alamgir v. Divisional Forest Officer, Multan and others 1993 . SCMR 603; Sh. Mudasar Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 1047; Government of the Punjab and another v. S. Tassudaq Hussain Bokhari PLD 1986 SC 162; Muhammad Ashraf and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 626; Muhammad Akbar v. S.S.P., Peshawr and others 1995 PLC (C.S.) 349; Pakistan and others v. Public at Large PLD 1987 SC 304; SYed Zafar Ali Shah and others v. General Pervaiz Musharaf and others PLD 2000 SC 869; Administrator, District Council, Larkana v. Gulab Khan and 5 others 2001 SCMR 1320; Secretary to Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413; A.D.B.P. v. Muhammad Anwar Bajwa and others 1994 SCMR 852; Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Karachi Development Authority and 6 others PLD 1984 Kar. 114; Edulji Dinshaw Limited v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399; Ataullah Mehr v. Punjab ' Government 1983 CLC 2903; Messrs East & West Steampship Company v. Pakistan and others PLD 1958 SC 41; Subedar Major Gul Zaman v. The Settlement, Commissioner, Lahore PLD 1976 Lah. 1454; I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041; The State v. Zia‑ur‑Rehman and others PLD, 1973 SC 49; Federation of Pakistan and another v Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar PLD 1989 SC 26; Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar v. Pakistan and others PLD 1988 Lah. 49; Nabi Bakhsh and another v. The State and others PLD 1991 Pesh. 10; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1992 SC 473; Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR 1863; Messrs Chenab Cement Product (.Private) Ltd. v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah. 672; Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi and others PLD 1994 SC 105; Al‑Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 324; S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 386; Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. and others 1999 SCMR 197; Nabi Bakhsh Khoso v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan 2001 SCMR 1017; A.R. Niazi, Advocate v. Pakistan and others PLD 1968 SC 119; Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmad & another 1969 SCMR 154; Nazir Ahmad Sheikh v. Government of Sindh and another 1998 PLC (C.S.) 607; Khalil‑ur‑Rehman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1981 Kar. 750; Shaheen Akhtar v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 70; Tahira Fazeelat and others v. Province of Punjab and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 268; Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry v. Chairman, CBR 2001 PLC (C.S.) 781; Inspector- General of Police v. Mushtaq Ahmad Warraich and others PLD 1985 SC 159; Haji Ghulam Mustafa v. Secretary, Agriculture Department, Punjab 1973 PLC 308; Mian Muhammad Abdullah v. The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore PLD 1964 Lah. 743; Major Muhammad Nawaz v. Pakistan PLD 1970 Lah. 811; PLD 2001 SC 568; Jamaat‑I‑Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2000 SC 111; PLD 2001 SC 607; Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of the Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280; Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari v. Secretary, Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 1948; Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Muneer and others 1998 SCMR 2129; National Bank of Pakistan v. Malik Manzoor Ahmad 1995 CLC 267; Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia‑ul- Hassan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60 and Waseem Sajjad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary PLD 2001 SC 2‑33 ref.
Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. (Punjab) and Shan Gull with Fauzi Zafar, A.A. ‑G. for Respondent.
Dates of hearing: 19th, 23rd to 26th, 30th and 31st July, 2001.
JUDGMENT
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑‑We propose to dispose of the following writ petitions by this judgment:
(1) 10758/2001, (2) 11611/2001, (3) 11610/2001, (4) 10638/2001,(5) 11614/2001, (6) 10630/2001,. (7) 12848/2001, (8) 10756/2001, (9) 10637/2001, (10) 10752/2001, (11) 11628/2001, (12) 11613/2001, (13) 11615/2(101, (14) 10821/2001, (15) 10816/2001, (16) 10819/2001, (17) 10817/2001, (18) 13458/2001, (19) 10624/2001, (20) 13457/2001, (2.1) 10828/2001, (22) 10823/2001, (23) 13459/2001, (24) 13456/2001, (25) 10837/2001, (26) 11774/2001, (27) 11776/2001, (28) 11773/2001, (29) 10829/2001, (30) 10825/2001, (31) 10820/2001, (32) 10818/2001, (33) 13455/2001,(34) 10822/2001, (35) 11627/2001, (36) 10755/2001, (37) 10620/2001, (38) 10631/2001, (39) 10757/2001, (40) 11617/2001, (41) 11616/2001, (42) 11622/2001, (43) 11619/2001, (44) 11620/2001, (451 11621/2001, (46) 10632/2001, (47) 11623/2001, (48) 11625/2001, (49) 11626/2001, (50) 13818/2001, (51) 10750/2001, (52) 10629/2001, (53) 10636/2001, (54) 11545/2001, (55) 11544/2001, (56) 11543/2001, (57) 11795/2001, (58) 13453/2001, (59) 11793/2001, (60) 11794/2001, (61) 11586/2001, (62) 11582/2001, (63) 10576/2001, (64) 10824/2001, (65) 13905/2001, (66) 10520/2001, (67) 11792/2001,.(68) 12364/2001, (69) 10623/2001, (70) 11618/2001, (71) 10754/2001, (72) 10749/2001, (73) 10619/2001, (74) 1`0621/2001, (75) 11624/2001, (76) 10751/2001, (77) 10622/2001, (78) 10760/2001, (79) 10753/2001, (80) 11542/2001, (81) 11612/2001, (82) 11056/2001, (83) 10432/2001, (84) 10433/2001, (85) 11775/2001, (86) 10836/2001, (87) 10563/2001, (88) 10839/2001. (89) 10562/2001, (90) 10682/2001, (91) 10565/2001, (92) 10840/2001. (93.) 10768/2001, (94) 10838/2001, (95) 13556/2001, (96) 13558/2001. (97) 11085/2001, (98) 11082 /2001,(99) 11083/2001, (100)11080/2001,(101)13833/2001,(102)11705/2001,(103)11703/2001,(104)11698/200L(105)11717/2001,(106)13251/2001,(107)12470/2001,(108)12594/2001,(109)12132/2001,(110)12121/2001,(111)11735/2001,(112)11783/2001,(113)12790/2001,(114)13392/2001,(115)13381/2001,(116)13389/2001,(117)13390/201,(118)13387/2001,(119)13386/2001, (120)13382/2001,(121)13384/2001,(122)13385/2001,(123)13388/2001,(124)13383/2001,(125)13391/2001,(126)12715/2001,(127)12824/2001,(128)12822/2001,(129)12825/2001,(130)12823/2001,(131)13915/2001,(132)13914/2001,(133)13917/2001,(134)13389/2001,(135).13400/2001,(136)13460/2001,(137)13656/2001,(138)11557/2001,(139)13420/2001(140)12449/2001,(141)13397/2001,(142)13199/2001,(143)13756/2001,(144)13394/2001,(145)12615/2001,(146)13396/2001,(147)13682/2001,(148)11449/2001,(149)11821/2001,(159) 13413/2001,(151)13395/2001,(152)14304/2001.
(i) Writ Petitions at Serial Nos. l to 113 are by the police officials.
(ii) In cases at Serial Nos.95, 96 and 113 a regular enquiry under the
Punjab Police (Efficiency ad Discipline) Rules, 1975, has been initiated. In all other cases except in the petition at Serial No.58, show‑cause notice has been issued for major penalty after dispensing with the inquiry.
(iii) In writ petition at. Serial No.58 proceedings have been initiated under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (Punjab Ordinance No.IV of 2000).
(iv) Petitions at Serial Nos. 114 to 126 are by the employees working in the office of the Accountant‑General, Punjab to whome show‑cause notices for premature retirement have been issued under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (Ordinance No.XVII of 2000).
(v) Petitions at Serial Nos. 127 to 133, 135 to 138, 140, 112, 143, 144, 147 ate by the employees of the Provincial Government to whom show‑cause notices have been issued under Ordinance No.IV of 2000.
(vi) Petition at serial No.134 is by an employee of the Irrigation Department against the order of his suspension.
(vii) In writ petitions at Serial.Nos.139, 141, 145, 146, the employees of the Punjab Government have been put to notice for premature retirement under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
(viii) Writ petitions at. Serial Nos. 148 and 149 are by the employees of the WASA of the FDA while writ petition at Serial No. 150 is by an employee of the Punjab Social Security Institute. In these three cases, show‑cause notices leave been issued to them under section 3(Q) of Ordinance, IV of 2000.
(ix) Writ petitions at Serial Nos:151 and 152 are by employees of the Pakistan Railway to whom show‑cause notices under Ordinance XVII of 2000 have beets issued.
3. Detailed submissions were made before us by the following learned counsel:
1. Mr. Farooq Beddar, Advocate,
2. Dr. A. Basit, Advocate,
3. Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate,
4. Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqui, Advocate,
5. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate,
6. Mr. Parvaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate,
7. Mr. Ikram Zahid, Advocate,
8. Mr. Nasir Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate,
9. Mr. M.D. Tahir, Advocate,
10. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad Shah, Advocate,
11. Mr. Ishrat Ali laved, Advocate,
12. Mr. M.…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.