mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...
mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...
mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 39/2010, 1150/2010, 1162/2010, 142-K/2009, 177-<br />
K/2010, 178-K/2010, 228-K/2010, 57-K/2011, 63-K/2011, 65-K/2011, 66-<br />
K/2011, 83-K/2011, 91-K/2011, 135-K/2011, 136-K/2011, 137-K/2011, 188-<br />
K/2011, 232-K/2011, 75-K/2012 AND 82-K/2012<br />
8<br />
JUDGMENT<br />
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.- This judgment<br />
shall dispose of the above titled appeals as the questions of law<br />
raised are common.<br />
BRIEF FACTS IN APPEALS:<br />
2. In Civil Appeal No. 39/2010 the respondent was<br />
serving as Vice Principal of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing<br />
Authority, Karachi. He was proceeded against departmentally inter<br />
alia on the ground that he violated service discipline by filing a<br />
constitution petition (bearing No. 1276 of 2008) seeking a direction<br />
that he may be ordered to be appointed as Principal. The enquiry<br />
c<strong>ul</strong>minated in the award of major penalty of termination of service.<br />
The High Court allowed the constitution petition on the ground<br />
that the order passed was not sustainable as the procedure<br />
prescribed in Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance<br />
2000 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ordinance 2000’] had not been<br />
followed.<br />
3. In Civil Appeal Nos. 177-K/2010, 178-K/2010, 65-<br />
K/2011, 66-K/2011, 83-K/2011, 91-K/2011, 135-K/2011 & 232-<br />
K/2011 the respondents are employees of various organizations<br />
which are admittedly under the control of Federal Government.<br />
Those organizations included House Building Finance Corporation,<br />
Port Qasim Authority, Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt) Ltd,<br />
S.M.E. Bank and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation.<br />
Respondents were proceeded against under the Ordinance, 2000<br />
and awarded major penalties. Some of them initially approached