Pakistan Case Law
1995 SCMR 1

THE VICE-PRESIDENT (ADMINISTRATION), NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1995 SCMR 1
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 520-L of 1992
Date1993-07-19
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman, Actg. CJ. and Saad Saood Jan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning a service and employment dispute involving a departmental enquiry against an employee. The core legal question examined by the court is whether, when an employee is proceeded ex parte in a departmental enquiry, it remains necessary to serve upon them the Enquiry Report and the second show-cause notice, and whether the subsequent order of dismissal passed against the respondent is defective on that account. The court granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine these questions regarding natural justice and procedural requirements in departmental proceedings. The principle laid down relates to the procedural safeguards and requirements of natural justice regarding the provision of enquiry reports and show-cause notices to employees, even when proceeded against ex parte in departmental enquiries.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether it is necessary to serve the Enquiry Report and the second show-cause notice on an employee who has been proceeded ex parte in a departmental enquiry?
  • Can an order of dismissal passed against an employee be declared defective if the Enquiry Report and second show-cause notice are not served upon him?
departmental enquiryex parte proceedingsshow-cause noticeenquiry reportservice matterleave to appeal

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, Actg CJ.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine whether, when an employee is proceeded ex parte in a departmental enquiry held against him, it is still necessary to serve on him the Enquiry Report and the second show-cause notice. In the circumstances of the case, whether the order of dismissal passed against the respondent No,1 could be said to be defective on that account.

Cited by 1 case

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