CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another vs UMAR-UD-DIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and another, challenging the judgment dated 12-8-2005 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside the departmental orders dated 2-1-2003 and 16-6-2003. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether departmental proceedings could be validly instituted against a retired government servant beyond the limitation period prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of merit because the case was hit by Rule 1.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules, which makes it mandatory that departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than one year from the date of retirement of a government pensioner, and no such proceedings had commenced within that time. The key principle laid down is that departmental proceedings against a retired civil servant cannot be initiated after the expiration of the mandatory one-year limitation period from the date of retirement.
- Can departmental proceedings be instituted against a government pensioner after more than a year from the date of retirement?
- Does Rule 1.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules impose a mandatory bar on initiating departmental proceedings against retired civil servants after one year?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Service Tribunal judgment that correctly applies the limitation rule for departmental proceedings?
- Rule 1.8, West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12-8- 2005 passed by the learned Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, in Appeal No,88 of 2003 filed by respondent Umaruddin whereby the said appeal was accepted and the impugned orders, dated 2-1-2003 and 16-6-2003 passed by the petitioners were set aside.
2. It is contended by Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General Sindh that respondent is involved in the embezzlement of Rs,1,10,85,834.80 and that embezzlement according to him took place during 1994 to 1997 while respondent was posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional District Magistrate, Jacobabad. He referred to show-cause notice, dated 5-3-2002 whereby embezzlement has been shown from 1991 to 1995-1996. He also referred to another Notification, dated 5-3-2002 wherein it was mentioned that the respondent has retried on attaining the age of superannuation on 29-1-2002.
3. Though heard at length, but the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not been able 4o point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners is hit by Rule 1.8 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Rules, whereby it is mandatory that departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of Government pensioners. In the instant case, it has been admitted that no such proceedings have yet commenced.
4. Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MULTAN through Mayor and 3 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1203
- PARVEEN JAVAID vs CHAIRMAN WAPDA and 5 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1527
- Ch. Asghar Mahmood vs Additional Secretary (Administration) K.L.R. 2011 Civil Cases 244
- Naseem Hussain Chughtai vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries Department, Lahore and 3 others 2008 C.L.R. 1670
- NASEER HUSSAIN CHUGHTAI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE & FISHRIES DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 3 others 2008 PLJ Lahore 1004