Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNIR AHMAD VS Respondent: SPECIAL SECRETARY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1604
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J
MUNIR AHMAD
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 800 of 2002, decided on 22nd April, 2002.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑R. 7(7)(a)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4, 199 & 212‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Powers of High Court‑‑‑Award of minor punishment of censure‑‑‑De novo inquiry‑‑‑Civil servant who was awarded minor punishment of censure being aggrieved had filed Constitutional petition alleging that Authorities did not pass any order of de novo inquiry of petitioner within prescribed period of 15 days as was envisaged by R.7(7)(a) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999‑‑‑Constitutional petition was resisted by Authorities contending that Constitutional petition was not maintainable in view of bar contained in Art.212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑Contention of Authorities had no force because High Court had ample power to give direction to public functionaries to act in accordance with law as envisaged by Art.4 read with Art.199 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑Duty and obligation of public functionaries was to redress grievances of citizens, their subordinates without fear, favour and nepotism‑‑‑Authority was directed by the High Court to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing hearing to parties.
Aslam Warraich v. Secretary. Planning and Development Division and 2 others 1991 SCMR 2330; Shakeel Ahmed v. Commandant 502 Central Workshop E.M.E. Rawalpindi and another. 1998 SCMR 1970; Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer WAPDA and others 1998 SCMR 2419; Muhammad Khaliq v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, and others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1373; H.M. Rizvi's case PLD 1981 SC 612 and M/s Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 ref.
Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2002.
ORDER
The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was awarded minor punishment of censure vide order dated 9‑8‑2000. The respondents passed the order dated 25‑11‑2000 for de novo inquiry of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits, that respondents did not pass any order of de novo inquiry of the petitioner within the prescribed period of 15 nays as is envisaged by rule 7 (7)(a). He further submits that the order of the competent Authority has become final in view of rule 7(7)(a) of the Punjab Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999. He further submits that respondents have no authority whatsoever, to pass the impugned order after the prescribed period in the aforesaid Rules, therefore, the impugned order of the respondents is without lawful authority. He further submits that impugned order is also hit by Article 13 of the Constitution and the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments.
Aslam Warraich v. Secretary Planning and Development Division and 2 others (1991 SCMR 2330), Shakeel Ahmed v. Commandant 502 .Central Workshop E. M.E. Rawalpindi and another. (1998 SCMR 1970), Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer WAPDA and others (1998 SCMR 2419) and Muhammad Khaliq v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, and others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1373).
He further urges that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution. He further submits that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. He further urges that the impugned order is not in accordance with the law. He further submits that in view of the Article 4 of the Constitution, respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with law.
3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, submits that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. He further submits that judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law as the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are arising out of the judgment of the Service Tribunal.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. The contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General has no force as this Court has to give direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 read with Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612). It is also the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievances of the citizens their subordinates without fear, favour, and nepotism as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268).
5‑A. In view of what has been discussed above, let a copy of the writ etition be sent to the respondent No. 1 Who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner. He is further directed to pass an appropriate order with reasons as is envisaged by section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 30‑4‑2002 who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly, in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner preferably with 20 days till 20-5-2002. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulate period. The learned Law Officer is directed to notify the order to the respondent No. 1 for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
H.B.T./M‑1293/L Order accordingly.