Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2008 P L C (C

2008 P L C (C.S.) 195

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD AMIN SAQI

Civil Petitions Nos.2993 and 3000-L of 2001, decided on 25th October, 2005.

(On appeal from judgment, dated 9-7-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.859 of 1999).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 212(3)---Removal from service---Conversion into compulsory retirement---Respondent while posted as Deputy District Education Officer made recruitment of six Security Guards---Respondent was proceeded against for violation of the instructions of the Government laying down the recruitment policy---Service Tribunal, on appeal converted penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement---Authorities had challenged said order of the Tribunal---Respondent had rendered 36 years of Government service and was already nearing the age of superannuation---No charge of corruption or other gross misconduct against respondent was on record so as to entail the extreme penalty of removal from service---Service Tribunal, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, was quite justified in converting the penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement from service---Impugned judgment was just and fair to which no exception could be taken.

M.A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.2293-L of 2001).

M.A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.2293-L of 2001) and for Petitioner (in C.P. No.3000-L of 2001).

Date of hearing: 25th October, 2005.

JUDGMENT

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---These petitions, by the Province of Punjab as well as by the respondent, for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 9-7-2001, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby, the departmental penalty of removal from service of the respondent was converted into his compulsory retirement from service.

2. The respondent while posted as Deputy District Education Officer (Male), Kasur, had made recruitment of six security guards out of which four were ex-army men and two were civilians. He was proceeded against for violation of the instructions of the Government laying down the recruitment policy. He was removed from service by the competent authority after necessary proceedings. He preferred Appeal No.859 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 9-7-2001, whereby the penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners (in C.P. No.2993-L of 2001) argued that the charge against the petitioner was duly proved through inquiry proceedings and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the penalty of removal into compulsory retirement from service.

4. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent (also the petitioner in connected C.P. No.3000-L of 2001) argued that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner in making recruitment of the security guards in his capacity as Chairman of the Recruitment Committee.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that the respondent had rendered 36 years of Government service and was already nearing the age of superannuation. There was no charge of corruption or other gross misconduct against the respondent so as to entail the extreme penalty of removal from service. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was quite justified in converting the penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement from service keeping in view the nature of charge which was proved against him. The impugned judgment is just and fair to which no exception can be taken.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

H.B.T./P-3/SC Leave refused.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant