Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No.349/210 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.
‑‑‑ Disciplinary action‑‑First lapse of a civil servant should not be taken seriously and can be ignored‑‑Agriculture Engineer charged for (i) delay in repair of machines and (ii) failure to submit reply to letter of explanation‑‑First charge not established but second charge proved‑‑Penalty of Censure imposed‑‑Service Tribunal taking into consideration past record, nature of charge and fact that it was first lapse on part of Officer, accepting appeal and setting aside impugned penalty order‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
P L D 1977 S C 24 fol.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.
Ghulam Rasool Javed, Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Workshop), Bahawalpur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director‑General Agriculture (Field), Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 31‑1‑1985, may be set aside and penalty of Censure be quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted on the following grounds:‑
(1) He committed verbally on 26‑1‑1983 before the D.A.E., Multan to repair Fiat Bulldozers No.F‑15, F‑16 and F‑17 within a period of one week but he failed to repair these Bulldozers and the machines were not sent out of Workshop even after a lapse of 5 months.
(2) He did not reply to the Explanation called for in this connection.
Enquiry Officer was appointed who concluded as under:‑
"the charges levelled against the accused officer are not established except that the appellant was responsible for giving late reply, and recommended minor penalty of Censure."
On receipt of the Inquiry report, the Director‑General, Field found that the appellant deliberately avoided reply and awarded penalty of Censure to the appellant. The appellant filed representation with the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department but the same was rejected, vide order, dated 8‑5‑1985. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while the main charge of the appellant stood unproved as it was found that the work was abandoned in order to undertake repairs of more important and urgent work, the other charge was only incidental and ancillary of the said charge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, charge No.1 stood unproved and there was not mention of charge No.2 in the charge‑sheet framed by the Authorised Officer, therefore, the penalty of censure was unjustified in consequence of the said charge. It has been further argued that the Enquiry Officer was not competent to make any recommendation with regard to the punishment as the term of reference of his inquiry so forwarded to him was about the main charge and he has either to say that the charge stood proved or unproved. In the end it was argued that the delay which attributed to the appellant not intentional as the fact remains that the appellant had been making strenuous efforts to procure new Balancer shafts from the market and the Director concerned had informed the appellant that an enquiry into the failure of these machines was also pending. However, in the alternative, it was argued that if at all, it was a first lapse in his entire career and, therefore, this penalty be set aside as it would stand in his way for his future promotion.
6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department and has submitted that it is incorrect to say that the appellant was not charge‑sheeted for the delay in replying to the explanation called for in this connection as the same finds mention in Annexure B at page 12 so pointed out by the appellant himself. It is also in the statement of allegations at page 13. Learned D.A. has further submitted that the delay in reply stands fully proved against him and penalty of censure was justified.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and in view of past service record of the appellant and the nature of offence I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that at the most it would be considered his first lapse on his part as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in their rulings reported as P L D 1977 S C 24. In the said ruling their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were of the view that first lapse of a civil servant should not be taken seriously and same can be forgiven.
8. In view of the above and following on the ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in this matter, I accept the appeal, l set aside the impugned order by considering it first lapse on the part B of the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer