ABDUL HAQUE SHAH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, SADDAR
The petitioner, a Patwari dismissed from service after inquiry on three separate charges of misconduct and corruption, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgments of the Service Tribunal dismissing his appeals. The core legal questions involved whether the Assistant Commissioner possessed the competency as the appointing authority to order the dismissal, and whether a civil servant already dismissed in one inquiry could be subjected to subsequent dismissal orders while his appeals were pending. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that pursuant to the amended West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963 via the notification dated 15th July 1972, the Assistant Commissioner was indeed designated as the appointing authority and competent to order dismissal. Furthermore, a person dismissed from service is treated as remaining in service for the purpose of pending proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that the Assistant Commissioner is the competent appointing and dismissing authority under the amended service rules.
- Whether the Assistant Commissioner is competent to pass an order of dismissal against a Patwari as the appointing authority under the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963?
- Does a person dismissed from service cease to be a civil servant for the purpose of multiple parallel inquiries while an appeal is pending?
- Whether multiple dismissal orders can be sustained against a civil servant facing separate disciplinary inquiries?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The Petitioner, a Patwari who has been dismissed after inquiry on three separate charges, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution against the three judgments of the Service Tribunal dated 13-1-1986 whereby the three appeals filed by him were dismissed.
2. The allegation against the petitioner in one case was of charging illegal gratification, of not handing over a copy of the Roznamcha Waqiati in the other and of acquiring property beyond his means in the third. After inquiry into the charges the Inquiry Officer held him to be guilty and recommended his dismissal which was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. His appeals to the Tribunal failed. Hence this petition.
3. Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that there were two legal grounds which he wanted to take up. The first was that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order of dismissal because he was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and in support he has relied upon the entries of the land record manual pars 3.25 and the entries of the Schedule referred therein. The second contention is that if an order of dismissal was passed in one inquiry, the petitioner ceased to be a civil servant on the passing of such an order and one who stands dismissed from service could not be further dismissed from it.
4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner omits to take note of the notification No, S.O.R. III-1-14/71 dated 15th July, 1972, whereby the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963 were amended and in rules 2(b) and 4, the word 'Collector' was substituted by the words 'Assistant Commissioner' and the Assistant Commissioner was defined to mean "an Assistant Commissioner incharge of a Sub-Division of a District, empowered to exercise powers of Collector under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967". Rule 4 dealing with the appointing authority thereafter read as "Appointments to the Service shall be made by the Assistant Commissioner concerned". As 'appointing authority', the 'Assistant Commissioner' could pass the order of dismissal after such amendments in the rules had taken place.
5. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner there is a decision of this Court that pending an appeal a person dismissed from service has to be treated as in service (reported as Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271 at page 277).
6. No case for leave to appeal is made out. Hence leave to appeal is refused in all the three petitions.
Leave to .
Cited by 4 cases
- Abdul Razzaq vs Development 2015 LHC 4487
- Abdul Razzaq vs Lahore Development Authority, etc 2015 LHC 4487, 2015 C.L.R. 1340
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, etc. 2016 PLJ Lahore 809
- ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2017 PLC(CS)N 27