Dr. AFTAB HASSAN MINHAS vs NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOMEOPATHY Regln — 2024 PLC(CS) 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE |

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. AFTAB HASSAN MINHAS VS NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOMEOPATHY Regln. 33---Employee/staff of National Council for Homeopathy, dismissal of ---Reinstatement into service---Appeal under National Council for Homeopathy (Staff) Service Regulations, 1987---Scope---Petitioner (superintendent) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to set-aside dismissal orders against him with the prayer to reinstate him in service with all back benefits---Contention of the petitioner was that the respondents (National Council for Homeopathy) had not decided his appeal under Regln. 33 of the NCH (Staff) Service Regulations, 1987 ('the Regulations')---Stance of the respondents was that the appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissal order was time barred---Validity---Petitioner had, pertinently, impugned two orders i.e. order of his dismissal passed in the year 2015 and the other passed in the year 2017 which was actually passed pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a Constitutional petition filed by him---Earlier the version of the petitioner was that he could not file appeal as he was not provided copies of inquiry proceedings for which he had to approach the High Court---There was no dispute regarding dismissal of the petitioner in terms of order passed in the year 2015---As per Regulation 33 of the Regulations, 28 days time was provided for filing appeal against the order from its communication---Impugned dismissal order was passed by the President of the Council against which the petitioner had to file appeal within 28 days---However, the petitioner filed appeal before the Council after about 33 days i.e. after expiry of limitation period; and on the same date he filed constitutional petition, for provision of inquiry proceedings/documents; and on the same date, said constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to the concerned respondent to provide copies of the documents claimed and that too were provided to him the next day (as the record revealed)---Petitioner was, interestingly, fully aware of Regulation 33(2) of 'the Regulations' which clearly provided exact period of limitation for filing the appeal before the concerned authority which he failed to do---If the stance taken by the petitioner was to be admitted as correct (that he was not provided the documents/inquiry proceedings which caused delay in filing the appeal before the Council after the expiry of limitation), even then the said exercise could be done by him within the period of limitation rather he opted to approach the High Court for provision of documents/inquiry proceedings after expiry of limitation period---Hence such version of the petitioner was not believable---Law helped the vigilant and not the indolent---When a law had described or required a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should have been done in that manner or not at all---So far as impugned order passed in the year 2017 was concerned, the same was passed pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which( impugned) order evinced that the Council being an Appellate Authority after ordering a fact-finding inquiry on formal inquiry already conducted on the basis of which the Petitioner was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service and on considering the inquiry reports, it came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed upon him by the Authority was well commensurate with proved charges--- Moreover, all the grounds taken in the present petition as well as in appeal filed by the petitioner were dealt with by the Council and he was afforded full opportunity of personal hearing as well as right of defence but he could not counter the charges/allegations through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence which otherwise had been proved---No case for interference by the High Court with the impugned orders was made-out which otherwise had been passed aptly---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. AFTAB HASSAN MINHAS vs NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOMEOPATHY Regln — 2024 PLC(CS) 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC