Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAHIR SHAH VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, MALAKAND, SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 930
[Service Tribunal N.W.F.P.]
Before Muhammad Siddique Khattak and Taj Muhammad Khan, Members
ZAHIR SHAH
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER, MALAKAND, SAIDU SHARIF, SWAT and another
Appeal No. 254 of 1989, decided on 26th February 1991.
(a) Civil service---
---- Compulsory retirement---Civil servant was allotted residential house on condition that same would be vacated by him within 30 days from receipt of notice of Authority for its vacation---As said house was required by Authority to accommodate another officer, Authority issued notice to civil servant to vacate house according to commitment, but he failed to do same due to non- availability of alternate accommodation and some other reasons---Civil servant was removed from service holding him guilty of misbehaviour and defiant attitude---Held, that no doubt civil servant had committed to vacate house within 30 days of the demand made by Authority and he was given ample time to find alternate accommodation for himself, but instead of resorting to extreme step of removal from service, despite civil servant's thirty years long service, he could be ejected through police as was done by Authority later on, it the Authority was not inclined to be compassionate to him by providing him alternate accommodation---Such an extreme step was not at all warranted particularly when civil servant was a low paid employee and had a family of 16 members---Penalty imposed on civil servant for not abiding by his undertaking thus was very harsh,
(b) Civil service---
---- Compulsory retirement---Authority prior to taking action against civil servant, failed to appoint authorised officer to proceed against civil servant, and instead acted itself as authorised officer by appointing an inquiry officer, a person who had earlier given civil servant a notice to vacate disputed house allotted to him---Impartial inquiry in a case could not be expected of a person who was a party to it---Authority removing civil servant from service, issued civil servant a charge-sheet whereas it was the job of authorised officer---No show-cause notice was given to civil servant before imposition of major penalty on him---Authority had not been able to deal with case dispassionately and judiciously and had inflicted punishment on civil servant which by no means was commensurate with charge of backing out of his commitment---Authority admittedly being guilty of exercising powers which were not available to him under relevant rules, order of Authority was set aside.
(c) Civil service---
---- Annual Confidential Report---Adverse remarks---On furnishing explanation to adverse remarks, communicated to civil servant, another charge-sheet was served on him and he was directed to submit his reply to charge-sheet to inquiry officer---On receipt of explanation to adverse remarks, Authority was supposed to take decision whether to retain or expunge remarks, but he gave civil servant a second charge-sheet which was not at all needed.
(d) Civil service---
-Natural justice, principles of---Violation---Authority; which issued order of removal from service earlier itself issued second charge-sheet which was not at all needed---Functions of Authorised Officer and Authority were arrogated to himself by Authority and thus Authority exceeded powers in utter disregard of rules on the subject---Authority having acted as a Judge in his own case had grossly violated principles of natural justice in circumstances.
(e) Civil service---
----Appeal---Limitation---Delay---Condonation---Decision of departmental appeal was reduced to writing after about 2 months from its announcement, thus civil servant filing appeal before Service Tribunal against that order could not get copy of decision of departmental appeal before it was reduced t6 writing ---Appellant/civil servant had solemnly affirmed that he could not file application for copy of order in due time as due to strike of clerical staff in those days no one was to receive such application---Delay of 7 days in filing appeal being not too much long was condoned in circumstances.
Jehanzaib Rahim for Appellant.
Said Bashar, Government Pleader for Respondents.