Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMAD PATWARI VS Respondent: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWALHonorable Justice Irshad Hassan KhanM.D. Tahir,Farooq Bedar
1989 P L C (C
1989 P L C (C.S.) 270
[Lahore High Court]
Before Irshad Hassan Khan, J
MANZOOR AHMAD PATWARI
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL
Writ Petition No. 6293 of 1988, heard on 24th January, 1989.
Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Dismissal from service by Authority‑‑Such Authority in earlier order had removed petitioner from service which was pending adjudication before Service Tribunal‑‑Legality of subsequent order of dismissal‑‑Once petitioner had been removed from service by earlier order of Authority, such Authority became functus officio and no question arose for dismissing petitioner again through impugned order‑‑No second order could be passed against petitioner as long as first holds the field‑‑Authority's subsequent order, dismissing petitioner from service was declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Previous order of removal from service would therefore, hold the field, subject to final decision by Service Tribunal.
M.D. Tahir for Appellant.
Farooq Bedar for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1989.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks a declaration that the petitioner's dismissal from service by order dated 25‑5‑1988, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal, is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Narowal, vide his order dated 8‑7‑1987 removed the petitioner from service as Patwari. The petitioner challenged his removal before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala. His appeal was rejected on 11‑11‑1987. Thereafter, he challenged his removal from service by means of Writ Petition No. 5471‑S‑87, which was also dismissed by my learned brother Afrasiab Khan, J. by his order dated 17‑1‑1988, on the ground that an adequate and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner before the appropriate Service Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged his first order of removal before the Punjab Service Tribunal and the matter is sub-judice there. Notwithstanding this the Assistant Commissioner Narowal by his order dated 25‑5‑1988, dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Learned counsel further submits that once the petitioner has been removed from service by the earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Narowal, he became functus officio and no question arose for dismissing him again through the impugned order.
4. There is great force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Advocate‑General has also frankly conceded that no second order of dismissal could be passed against the petitioner as long as the first holds the field.
5. In view of the above, the order dated 25‑5‑1988 of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Narowal, is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the previous order dated 8‑7‑1987 shall hold the field, subject to final decision by the Punjab Service Tribunal.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is accepted with costs.
A.A./M‑1081 /L Petition accepted.