Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MOHI-UD-D1N VS Respondent: The COMMANDANT, E.M.E. RECORDS, QUETTA and 3 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Manzoor Hussain Sial Title:GHULAM MOHI-UD-D1N vs The COMMANDANT, E.M.E. RECORDS, QUETTA and 3
others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No, 438 of 1994 Date of Judgment:1995-02-14 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 1025 Result: Leave granted Judgment ORDER ' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner (Ghulam Mohi-udDin) seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 1-8-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby Appeal No, 73(R) of 1994 filed by him was dismissed. 2. On 7-1-1977, the petitioner was appointed as Semi-Skilled Grade-II Wireless Mechanic in 502 Central E.M.E. Workshops, Rawalpindi. On the basis of his satisfactory performance of duties he was promoted to highly skilled Grade-I Wireless Mechanic on 30-5-1990. The petitioner on the basis of the allegations of misconduct was removed from service with effect from 31-10-1993. He challenged the order of his removal in appeal which was rejected on 14-2-1994 by the Director- General, E.M.E. Directorate, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was not provided either charge- sheet or the statement of allegations to enable him to explain his position. He also contended that neither the witnesses were examined in his presence nor he was provided opportunity of cross- examining them. He was not allowed to produce any witness in support of his defence nor he was heard in person. It was further submitted that the petitioner being civil servant was required to be proceeded against under the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The major penalty of the removal from service could not have been imposed without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules. 4. After hearing learned counsel and going through the file, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case to examine the aforementioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for the