- S. 3 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.47 — Removal from service — Reinstatement by Service Tribunal — Appeal to Supreme Court — Limitation — Employee who was removed from service, filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which through the impugned judgment set aside punishment of removal from service and reinstated him into service, but period spent in between his removal and reinstatement was treated as leave without pay — Department filed appeal before the Supreme Court against judgment of Service Tribunal whereby he was ordered to be reinstated in service — Validity — Appeal was barred by 4 days and deducting one day which had been spent in obtaining certified copy of impugned order, appeal was time-barred — For condonation of delay, the party had to explain the delay of each day and every day to satisfy the court, whereas in the present case neither any explanation had been tendered nor any request for condonation of delay in filing appeal had been made — Appeal being time-barred was not maintainable, in circumstances. Muhammad Younus v. Transport officer, Central Transport Pool/Authority, Central Transport Pool, Muzaffarabad 2012 SCR 358 (A & B)
- S. 3 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 47 — Removal from service — Reinstatement by Service Tribunal — Employee who was removed from service filed appeal to Service Tribunal which set aside the punishment of removal from service, reinstated the employee into service from the date of removal, but the period spent in between his removal and reinstatement was treated as leave without pay — Employee had partly challenged the impugned before the Supreme Court to the extent of treating the period of absence from removal till reinstatement, as leave without pay — Findings recorded by the Service Tribunal to the extent of reinstatement and setting aside the removal from service, which were based on record, did not call for any interference by Supreme Court and were upheld — Finding of the Service Tribunal for treating the period of alleged absence from date of removal till reinstatement as leave without pay, was not consistent with the principles of law — When the punishment order passed by departmental Authority was found to be illegal; and consequently, employee was reinstated, the employee was entitled to all the emoluments — Accepting appeal of the employee, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was modified; and it was held by the Supreme Court that employee was entitled to all the emoluments according to law for the period consumed in between removal and reinstatement — Period of alleged absence would be treated as leave, admissible under Rules. M. Younus v. Transport officer, Central Transport Pool/Authority, Central Transport Pool, Muzaffarabad 2012 SCR 358 (C & D)
- —Section 3—competent authority— which one to proceed against judicial officer—the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Govt.—Question to be determined—the Chief Justice of the High Court entrusted with additional charge of the Inspector General of Registration—the Judicial Officer assigned with additional Charge as Sub-Registrar by the Chief Justice—in case of illegality/irregularity by judicial officer performing additional charge—The Chief Justice is competent authority to proceed against judicial officer—-the Govt. is not competent authority— It is an admitted fact that the basic appointment of the respondent has been made as a judicial officer, subordinate to the High Court, and only an additional charge of Sub-Registrar was assigned to him by the Government, therefore, in such situation, in our view, if the respondent committed any illegality/irregularity while performing the additional duty the appointing authority, in whose subordination, he is performing the duty, is competent to proceed against him. We deem it proper to mention here that the Chief Justice of the High Court is also performing the duty of Inspector General of Registration; the Government delegated the powers of Inspector General of Registration to the Chief Justice High Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the Chief Justice High Court is subordinate to the Government. If while performing the function as Inspector General of Registration the Chief Justice High Court commits any illegality/irregularity, the Government is not vested with such powers to proceed against him rather the Government may refer the matter to the proper forum, i.e., Supreme Judicial Council, as the Chief Justice High Court is not supposed to subordinate to the Government mere on the ground that the Government delegated to him the powers of Inspector General of Registration. It may be observed here that the Registrars/Sub-Registrars, at present, are the judicial officers and any illegality committed by them may shake the confidence of public at large upon the administration of justice as the people are expected that the Judges cannot indulge in the malfunctions. The observation of the Service Tribunal that the Government is competent authority relating to the judicial officers when they perform their duties as Registrar or Sub-Registrar is even against the spirit of independence of judiciary. Competent Authority vs Rashid Iftikhar Hashmi 2018 SCR 614 (A)
- Section 3, clause (F) — major and minor penalties — medical profession — recovery of expenditures incurred on training — It is celebrated principle of law that penal clauses have to be strictly construed and the scope of penal clauses cannot be enlarged for inclusion of any penalty which is not expressly provided in the statutory penal clause. For recovery of such amount, there may be some other statutory provision or procedure such like as Enforcement of Bonds furnished by the civil servant but the order of recovery of such amount under the Land Revenue Act like other revenue, cannot be passed in the proceedings conducted under Special Powers Act. Dr. Ashiq Hussain Bhatti v. Azad Govt, & 5 others 2016 SCR 365 (C)
- —section 3 & 5—authority empowered to remove civil servant from service—appointment of inquiry officer mandatory before removing from service—proper inquiry and compliance of statutory provisions— required—under the provision of section 3 , the competent authority is vested with the power to remove a civil servant from service. But according to the provisions of section 5 of the same Statute before passing an order under the provision of section 3 it is enjoined upon the competent authority to appoint an inquiry officer or inquiry committee and proper inquiry and compliance of the statutory provisions the order of removal from service has to be passed. As the authority admittedly, failed to comply with provisions of section 5 of the Act, 2001, therefore the Service Tribunal rightly accepted the appeal of the respondent, civil servant. D. G Veterinary& others v. Muhammad Shabbir & another 2017 SCR 232 (A)
- Ss. 4, 9, 10, 11, 3, 5 — Charge — Appellant was compulsorily retired from service — Direct appeal before Service Tribunal — Competence — Appeal had been dismissed by Service Tribunal on sole ground that appellant had not filed representation before the Prime Minister as postulated under the Act — Supreme court could not agree with impugned findings recorded by Service Tribunal that direct appeal was not competent — Held: Direct appeal before Service Tribunal was competent — Case was remanded by Supreme Court. DIRECT SERVICE APPEAL (Maintainability) Direct appeal before service Tribunal is competent. Case was remanded by Supreme Court. M. Rafique Driver, Office of Election Commissioner, Local Bodies, Azad Govt., Muzaffarabad v. Election Commissioner, Local Bodies, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad (Authority) and 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1050
- — Section 11—AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974— section 47-A — AJ&K Judicial Department (Lower Courts Establishment) Rules, 1991—Applicability of Act, 2001 to the employees of subordinate judiciary—Held: Act, 2001 is not applicable to the employees whose terms and conditions of service are governed by the rules framed under section 47-A of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974— The terms and conditions of appellant’s service are governed by the rules framed under Civil Servants Act, 1976 — Under section 11 of Act, 2001 it has been given overriding effects to the Civil Servants Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder, thus, held: Act, 2001 is applicable to the case of the appellant. Shabaz Akram v. Competent Authority & others 2017 SCR 1257 (A)
- —Removal from service—reinstatement into service on the order of Minister—validity—admittedly respondent was removed from service under the provisions of Act, 2001—No representation or appeal before Service Tribunal—reinstatement into service on the order of Minister Education—Held: the Minister Education figures nowhere in the rules in relation to such like matters—the order passed by the Minister on the face of it is without lawful authority– Sadaqat Ali v. Headmistress Govt. Girls High School Sathi Bagh & 6 others 2020 SCR 104 (A)
- —Applicability on Police Employees—Being a general law, AJK Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, does not apply on police personnel—rather the Police Act, 1861, the Police Rules, 1932, the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992, apply on members of police force—the Police Act and Rules made thereunder regarding the Efficiency & Discipline being special law, shall prevail and Act, 2001, being general law is not applicable to the members of the Police force. Admittedly, the appellant is the employee of Police Force/department and in the light of the above reproduced dictum, he cannot be proceeded under the provisions of the Act, 2001. Thus, the proceedings, conducted and punishment awarded to the appellant under the provisions of Act, 2001, are nullity in the eye of law. The learned Service Tribunal has not considered this important legal proposition, while handing down the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is not maintainable. Ehsan-ul-Rehman v. Deputy Inspector General of Police & 8 others 2020 SCR 236 (A)
- —Competent authority—- the Chief justice of the High Court not the Govt.—the Service Tribunal fell in error of law by declaring the Govt. as the competent authority—- we are of the
- considered view that in the instant case the Chief Justice High Court is the competent authority and the findings recorded by the Service Tribunal that the competent authority was Government and the Chief Justice passed the order without lawful authority, are not tenable in the eye of law. Competent Authority vs Rashid Iftikhar Hashmi 2018 SCR 614 (B)
error: Content is protected !!