MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others
This civil appeal arose from a petition challenging the imposition of a disciplinary penalty on the petitioner under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 could be switched over and concluded under the new Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under the explicit terms of Section 13 of the Ordinance, any disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to its commencement must be completed under the pre-existing Efficiency and Discipline Rules rather than the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the penalty order and the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, and remanded the case to the departmental authority to proceed and pass an order under the original Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
- Can disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 be lawfully concluded under the said Ordinance?
- What is the statutory effect of Section 13 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 on pending disciplinary inquiries?
- Section 13, Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The notices issued to the respondents in pursuance of order dated 10-4- 2003 have been returned with the report that some of them have gone on tour and the others have been transferred.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition was that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under (E&D) Rules, Inquiry Officer was appointed who made report and the matter was pending before the Departmental Authority when proceedings were switched over to Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the petitioner was imposed penalty thereunder, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner could not be done as per terms of section 13 of the said Ordinance.
3. The contention appears to be correct, for section 13 of the Ordinance is explicit on the point that disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to coming into force of the said Ordinance were to be completed under (E&D) Rules, and not under this Ordinance.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal the same is accepted, order dated 25-4-2000 imposing penalty on the petitioner under section 13 of the Ordinance and the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 18-12-2002 are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Departmental Authority to proceed from the stage under (E&D) Rules when order dated 20-4-2002 was passed for passing order under the said rules.
Cited by 5 cases
- Mian SHAHID MEHMOOD-II Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE 2024 PLC(CS) 773
- PRINCIPAL, SARDAR KAUREY KHAN PUBLIC HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUZAFFARGARH Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.11, D.G. KHAN 2015 PLC 33
- Engineer MAJEED AHMED MEMON vs LIAQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDCIAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES JAMSHORO through Principal Executive and 3 others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 856
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, NADRA and 2 others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 117
- Dr. SAEED HUSSAIN EX-MEDICAL OFFICER, NISHTAR HOSPITAL, MULTAN vs MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HEADQUARTER HOSPITAL, BHAKHAR and 3 others 2020 [M] C L R 1338, 2020 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 5