Pakistan Case Law
2010 PLC (C.S.) 572

SHAFI MUHAMMAD SAND vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2010 PLC (C.S.) 572
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.267-K of 2008
Date2009-11-04
Judge(s)Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Authored bySarmad Jalal Osmany
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a civil servant who was departmentally proceeded against, dismissed from service, and subsequently reinstated by the Government of Sindh following a review petition. Although the summary for reinstatement proposed a minor penalty, the actual reinstatement order made no mention of any such penalty. Following the petitioner's retirement, the Government of Sindh issued an order imposing a minor penalty of recovery of alleged financial loss from his pension and commutation. The petitioner's departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether a minor penalty involving financial recovery could be lawfully imposed after retirement without due notice, a proper inquiry, or compliance with the applicable rules. The Court held that, prima facie, the petitioner was condemned unheard. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and converted the petition into an appeal to be heard in due course.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a minor penalty involving financial recovery from pension be lawfully imposed upon a retired civil servant without due notice and a proper inquiry?
  • Whether the omission of a penalty in a reinstatement order precludes the government from subsequently imposing that penalty without fresh proceedings?
  • Does the failure to provide a hearing before imposing a financial recovery penalty violate the principle of natural justice?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
  • Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000
civil servicedepartmental inquiryreinstatementminor penaltypension recoveryaudi alteram partemnatural justiceleave to appeal

' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.----Mr. Ansari Abdul Latif, Learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him which was never challenged before any forum.

However, he filed a Review Petition before the then Chief Minister, Sindh and per the summary he was reinstated with minor penalty being imposed upon him. However, per the order of reinstatement issued by the Government of Sindh there is no mention of any minor penalty at all.

Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service but surprisingly thereafter the Government of Sindh passed an order imposing a minor penalty upon the petitioner being recovery of the loss to the Government to the tune of Rs,11,31,916 from his pension/ commutation. Thereafter the petitioner filed a departmental appeal without any success and then approached the learned Sindh Service Tribunal with the same result. Hence this petition.

2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that according to the petitioner's reinstatement order dated 5-9-1997, there is no mention of any minor penalty and hence the same cannot be imposed without due notice to the petitioner and a proper inquiry under the Rules. Additionally, the Sindh government E&D Rules were replaced by the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 on 30- 8-2000. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to be proceeded against under the said Rules which exercise has yet not taken place.

3. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the impugned judgment.

4. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner was condemned unheard. Hence we would, while granting leave, convert this petitior into an appeal. To be listed in due course.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.