Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SYED AKBAR ALI VS Respondent: ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE (EAST), KARACHI
1990 P L C (C
1990 P L C (C.S.) 23
[Karachi High Court]
Before Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J
Syed AKBAR ALI
versus
ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE (EAST), KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1989, decided on 17th January, 1989.
Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑ Employee's transfer order was suspended by High Court through interlocutory order‑‑‑Employee's plea was that Authority had suspended him from service in spite of the interlocutory order, thus committing contempt of Court‑‑‑Record showed that certain irregularities having been committed by the employee‑‑ Chairman of the Department had requested for the suspension of the employee whereupon Authority had suspended him‑‑‑Authority was not a party to Constitutional petition filed by the employee‑‑‑Reference against employee had not been made after the passing of the interim order and the suspension order had been passed on the basis of reference which was already pending with the Authority‑‑‑Such suspension order had been issued upon the passing of the order by the Minister concerned‑‑‑No contempt of Court was thus committed in circumstances.
Muhammad Ali Sayeed for Petitioner.
Sanaullah Oureshi and Maqbool Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
Abdul Hafiz Lakho, A.‑G. (Send) for Respondent.
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑On 16‑1‑1989 when the above case had come up for hearing, Mr. Sanaullah Oureshi learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 had produced a Photostat copy of an order dated 15‑1‑1989 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Town Planning, Government of Sind, suspending the petitioner from service. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this has been done in spite of order‑dated 4‑1‑1989, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the above petition ordering that the petitioner will not be disturbed till 16‑1‑1989. It may be observed that the petition was filed impugning the order dated 13‑12‑1988 ordering the transfer of the petitioner, The above interlocutory order was passed in the context of the said order of transfer.
We wanted to be satisfied whether the order of suspension has been passed in violation of the Court order and, therefore, we directed the respondent to produce the record of the department in respect of the petitioner. In response to the above direction Mr. Abdul Hafiz Lakho, Advocate‑General who was present yesterday brought the record of the Government Department, whereas the Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Muhammad Ali Gardezi who is a Municipal Commissioner of the respondent is also present in person.
From the record, it seems that the Chairman of the respondent on 28‑12‑1988 made a reference to the Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Town Planning, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Sind, Karachi alleging therein certain irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner and requesting for the suspension of the petitioner. A copy of the above letter was riled by respondent No. 1 along with their counter‑affidavit, which was filed in the Court on 4‑11‑1989 before the passing of the aforesaid interim order. It appears that upon the above reference the Additional Chief Secretary had passed the above suspension order. The Additional Chief Secretary or the Provincial Government was not a party to the above proceeding. From the record prima facie, it seems that the above reference has not been made after the A passing of the above interim order and the suspension order has been passed on the basis of the above reference which was already pending with the Additional Chief Secretary. It may be stated that according to Mr. Abdul Hafiz Lakho, Advocate‑General Sind, the above suspension order has been issued upon the passing of the order by the Minister concerned.
We are of the view that no contempt is involved. However, Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file an amendment application for amending the petition suitably. In view of the above development, he may file the same which will be considered in accordance with law.
A.A./A‑652/K
Order accordingly.