W.P. 4088-2010 (Dr. Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi Vs Hydrocarbon ...

Judgment SheetISLAMABAD HIGH COURTISLAMABADW.P. No. 4088/2010Dr. Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi, General ManagerVersusHydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistanthrough its Secretary etc.Petitioner by:Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen AdvocateRespondent No.1 & 3 by: Mr. Abdul Rashid Awan, AdvocateRespondent No.2 by: Mr. Shafi Muhammad Chandio, D.A.G.Date of decision: 24-06-2011----------------------------------------------------------------Riaz Ahmad Khan J: This judgment is directed to dispose ofW.P. No4088/2010.2. Facts constituting the background of present writ petition arethat the petitioner was appointed as General Manager, POL,Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan. He was issuedcharge sheet dated 12-06-2009 under Rule 6(2) of GovernmentServants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitionersubmitted his reply dated 22-06-2009. Thereafter, show-cause noticedated 29-07-2009 was issued to the petitioner alongwith statementof allegations. The petitioner filed reply dated 13-08-2009.Thereafter, major penalty of removal from service was imposedupon the petitioner vide impugned order dated 25-11-2009. Thepetitioner filed departmental appeal dated 09-12-2009, but thesame was rejected vide order dated 05-03-2010. Feeling aggrievedof the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner was not provided an opportunity of personal hearing by

2W.P. No. 4088/2010the competent authority. The alleged enquiry was not conductedin accordance with law. It was further submitted that the impugnedorders were not issued by the competent authority as provided inRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Similarly,charge sheet and show-cause notice were not issued by thecompetent authority.4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that the Rules governing the services of the petitioner arenon-statutory, so writ cannot be issued. It was further submitted thatthe petitioner himself had participated in the enquiry and theimpugned order was passed in accordance with law, rules andprocedure.5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have alsoperused the record.6. The record shows that Hydrocarbon Development Institute ofPakistan had originally come through resolution, however,afterwards Act No. 1 of 2006 was passed, which provided theestablishment of Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan.Section 20 of the said Act provided that “all employees, officers,consultants, advisers and other staff employed in any capacity in theformer Institute immediately before the commencement of this Act shallstand transferred to the Institute on the same terms and conditions ofservice on which they were employed immediately before such transferand shall be deemed to be the employees of the Institute under this Act.”Section 21 of the Act provided that “the employees of the Instituteshall be deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the ServiceTribunals Act, 1973”. Under the said Act “Hydrocarbon Development

4W.P. No. 4088/2010Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, whichwas properly replied by the petitioner. Consequent to the same, theimpugned order was passed. The impugned order was passed bythe competent authority as provided in Hydrocarbon DevelopmentInstitute of Pakistan Service and Financial Rules, 2009. As such, thecontention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugnedorder was not issued by the competent authority, is not correct. Allthe legal requirements were fulfilled and it cannot be said that theorder passed against the petitioner was in violation of any law orrules.8. In the above circumstances, I find no force in this writ petitionand the same is hereby dismissed.(RIAZ AHMAD KHAN)JudgeWajid