Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 83 (R) of 1981, decided on 17th ‑May, 1983.

‑‑Ss. 4 & 5‑‑Disciplinary matter ‑ Scope of interference by Tribunal‑Tribunal obliged to avoid technicalities and dispense with real and substantial justice between a civil servant and concerned departmental authority‑Omission, defect or irregularity in conduct of departmental inquiry by itself would not vitiate action unless same caused material prejudice to accused in his defence‑Tribunal declining to interfere even if impugned penalty order suffering from some irregularity or illegality unless it is proved that injustice done to accused‑Findings of enquiry indicative that Enquiry Officer applied his mind to each and every aspect of matter and properly appreciated evidence produced before him‑Detailed reasoning given by Enquiry Officer furnishing sufficient justification for holding accused guilty of charges‑Impugned order based upon evidence and findings of enquiry‑Interference, in circumstances, refused merely on grounds of technical and procedural irregularities not causing prejudice to accused.

M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.

M. Shahudul Haq for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 30th March, 1983.

.‑The appellant then a Survey Officer in the Planning Unit of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture was served with a charge‑sheet dated the 17th July, 1978, for the following allegation:---

(i) that when the appellant went on official tour to Abbottabad and Swat on 19‑5‑1977 in Government vehicle, he took with him his family in the said transport without pr for permission of the competent authority.

(ii) that he stayed in hotels at' Abbofabad and Swat along with his family and the hotel bills submitted by him included the expenditure spent for boarding and lodging of his family ;

(iii) that though he did not visit Kalpio, Matian and Undegram yet mentioned in tour note that he visited the said places ;

(iv) that he stayed at Swat for three days when the Field Investigator was not there and he did not do any official work ; and

(v) that during the course of preliminary enquiry held against him, his attitude towards his superiors was derogatory and against all norms of discipline.

2. In his reply to the charge sheet the appellant denied all the allegations and took many technical and legal pleas. Mr. Muhammad Sami, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who held an enquiry as required under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and on the basis of detailed reasoning given by him, he came to the con clusion that (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) charges were proved but not (iv). The Authority, after considering the enquiry report and explanation of the accused, imposed on him penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal dated 22‑12‑1980 and when he did not receive any reply thereto even on expiry of the statutory period of ninety days, instituted the present appeal in this Tribunal.

2‑A. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record of the enquiry proceedings. In the enquiry proceedings, memo. of appeal and the arguments advanced before us on behalf of the appellant, the greatest emphasis was laid on the technical and legal pleas alleging a number of procedural irregularities in the proceedings held against him. It is, however, a well‑settled legal position that the correct rule to follow in cases of disciplinary enquiries is that if an omission, defect or irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry has not caused material prejudice to the accused official in the matter of his defence, then such an irregularity, omission or defect would not, by itself, vitiate the action taken against him. In such cases unless it is proved that an injustice has been done to the accused official, even if the impugned order of the competent authority suffers from some irregularity or illegality, this Tribunal should always decline to interfere. Indeed, this Tribunal is obliged to avoid technicalities and dispense with real and substantial justice between a civil servant and the concerned departmental authority. In the instant case, on the basis of material on record, we are of the considered view that the irregularities and procedural errors in the proceedings alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be considered at all prejudicial to the appellant and, therefore, would not, in any manner, affect the legality and validity of the proceedings and the impugned order passed thereon. The legal and technical objections taken by the learned counsel for the appellant are thus repelled.

3. We have carefully gone through the enquiry report which runs into 27 typed pages in which the Enquiry Officer has applied his mind to each and every aspect of the matter and properly appreciated the evidence produced before him. We are thus led to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on a proper analysis of evidence and detailed reasonings given by him which furnish sufficient justification for holding the appellant guilty of the charges. It could not be shown that the impugned order is not based on the evidence or is arbitrary or perverse. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant has rightly bee held guilt and justifiably punished. The impugned order does not call for any interference and is accordingly upheld. The appeal, having no merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.