Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

2005 PLC(CS) 1521

RAFI AHMED VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI

Petitioner: RAFI AHMED VS Respondent: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHIHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHANSanaullah Noor Ghauri,Khalil Dogar

Court: FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2005 P L C (C

2005 P L C (C.S.) 1521

[Federal Service Tribunal]

Before Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Members

RAFI AHMED

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and others

Appeal No.460 (K)(CS) of 2002, decided on 16th June, 2004.

Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)---

----Ss. 3 & 10---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 4---Penalty of withholding of Annual Increments---Appeal---Penalty imposed under two distinct provisions of law---Validity---Appellant had been imposed minor penalty of withholding of four Annual Increments by combining relevant provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Provisions of two separate and distinct laws had been invoked in the impugned order---Held, in view of such obvious illegality involved in the case, case was remanded to Department for de novo proceedings within a period of three months---Impugned order was set aside and action was to be taken under relevant law.

PLJ 2003 SCJ 510 ref.

Sanaullah Noor Ghauri for Appellant.

Khalil Dogar for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th June, 2004.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN (MEMBER).-Heard the Counsel for the parties concerned. The learned counsel for the Appellant has invited reference to impugned order dated 17-5-2002 whereby the Appellant has been imposed minor penalty of withholding of four Annual Increments by combining relevant provisions of Government Servants (E&D) Rules and Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. The impugned order reads as under:

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI No. CON/03/3001 CB(P) Dated: 17-5-2002

OFFICE ORDER No.67 2002 CBP(P)

Consequent upon finalization of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rafi Ahmed Preventive Officer, under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 duly amended by Ordinance v of 2001, the Competent Authority has been pleased to impose a minor penalty of withholding of four (4) annual increments upon him, as provided under rule 4(i)(a) (ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973, read with section 3 of RSO 2000 duly amended by Ordinance V of 2001.

2. He is reinstated into service with immediate effect and period of his suspension period be treated as on leave.

(Sd)

Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive, Head Quarters, II.

It is observed that provisions of two (2) separate and distinct laws have been invoked in the impugned order. Learned counsel has also referred B to case-law reported in PLJ 2003 SCJ 510. The operative part of the case-law is reproduced below:

Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---

----S.13 thereof read with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---Petitioner employed in Civil Courts---Proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 however at the time of issuance of show-cause notice the Competent Authority switched over to the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and major penalty was awarded thereunder---Appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal failed petition there against before Supreme Court on grounds inter alia that proceedings initiated under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 could not be converted into Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 in view of embargo placed by section 13 thereof---Impugned judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal and of Competent Authority set aside---Case remanded for proceedings under (E&D) Rules.

2. In view of obvious illegality involved, the case is remanded back to the department for de novo proceedings within a period of three (3) months. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside enabling the department to take action as per relevant law.

H.B.T./69/FST Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories