Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SAEED WAZIRHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza KhanHafiz S.A. Rehman
2009 P L C (C
2009 P L C (C.S.) 176
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman and 3 others
Versus
Messrs MUHAMMAD SAEED WAZIR, former General-Manager, (T&R) PTCL and another
Civil Petition No.1136 of 2003, decided on 6th May, 2005.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9-4-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.87-P (CS) of 2001).
Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)---
----Ss. 3(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) & 5---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Dismissal from service---Contention of the petitioner was that civil servant having entered into a plea bargain with National Accountability Bureau, could be dismissed under S.3(1)(c)(iv) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Validity---Issuance of show-cause notice and holding of inquiry, in the given circumstances, was necessary under S.3, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---When neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held, Service Tribunal had rightly set aside the impugned order of dismissal---Regardless of whether the proceedings were taken under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 or under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, a dismissal without notice and without inquiry could not be ordered in circumstances of the present case---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The insertion of sub-clauses (c) (iv) in subsection (1) of section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 merely makes an addition to the grounds for action from (a) to (e) and does not authorize the competent authority to pass any order without enquiry. The closing paragraph of section 3 subsection (1) clearly lays down that if conditions given under sub-clauses (a) to (e) are available; the competent authority, after inquiry by the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee appointed under section 5, may dismiss or remove the civil servant from service or take any other action alluded to in the aforementioned para.
The issuance of show-cause notice and the holding of inquiry, in the given circumstances was necessary under section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. In the present case, neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held and thus, Tribunal had rightly set aside the impugned order of dismissal. Regardless of whether the proceedings were taken under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 or under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, a dismissal without notice and without inquiry could not be ordered in the circumstances of the present case.
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Date of hearing: 6th May, 2005.
JUDGMENT
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through its Chairman and other functionaries seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, against the judgment, dated 9-4-2003 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby, on acceptance of the appeal of Muhammad Saeed Wazir former General Manager (T&R) PTCL, the order, dated 20-10-2000 of his dismissal from service, was set aside leaving open for the department to pass any order in accordance with law.
2. Relevant facts are to the effect that the respondent remained under investigation by National Accountability Bureau where he entered into a plea bargain on 25-7-2000. On 7-9-2000, a letter was issued from Chief Executive Secretariat National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad to the Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad to take follow up action provided under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 under intimation to the Bureau. Thereafter, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent through the impugned order, dated 20-10-2000.
3. Learned Tribunal was of the view that on the day of dismissal from service i.e. 20-10-2000, the respondent could not have been removed under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 because by then Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already been promulgated with effect from 20-5-2000/27-5-2000 and that section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance excluded the application of any other law.
4. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that under section 3(1)(c)(iv) added by Ordinance V of 2001, the dismissal could be ordered because of respondent having entered into a plea bargain with NAB Authorities.
5. We are afraid this argument would not hold the ground because the insertion of sub-clauses (c) (iv) in subsection (1) of section 3 of the Ordinance merely makes an addition to the grounds for action from (a) to (e) and does not authorize the competent authority to pass any order without enquiry. The closing paragraph of section 3 subsection (1) clearly lays down that if conditions given under sub-clauses (a) to (e) are available, the competent authority, after inquiry by the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee appointed under section 5, may dismiss or remove the civil servant from service or take any other action alluded to in the aforementioned para.
6. We are convinced that the issuance of show-cause notice and the holding of inquiry, in the given circumstances was necessary under section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. In the instant case, neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held and thus, Tribunal has rightly set aside the impugned order of dismissal. Regardless of whether the proceedings are taken under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 or under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, a dismissal without notice and without inquiry could not be ordered in the circumstances of the present case. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
M.B.A./P-32/SC Petition dismissed.