Find a Lawyer

Case No. 48/194 of 1984, decided on 29th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Rr.6(6) s 6(7)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑ Disciplinary action‑‑Dismissal 'or absence without sanctioned leave

Charge‑sheet issued‑‑Neither Enquiry officer appointed nor enquiry, held‑‑Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, passed not in accordance with requirements of rules hence unlawful and not sustainable‑‑Service Tribunal setting aside impugned dismissal order, directing re‑instatement of appellant to bestow upon him status of a civil servant and remanding case to authority for proceeding afresh, by way of appointment of Enquiry officer and conducting enquiry, from stage from which lacuna occurred.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Jamil‑ud‑Din ex‑Supervisor Instructor Auto, Pak German Technical Training Centre, Moghalpura, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 7‑5‑1981 passed by the respondent No.2, and order, dated 1‑1‑1985, passed by the respondent No.1, be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Supervisor Instructor, Technical Taining Centre, Moghalpura, Lahore was granted 360 days ex‑Pakistan leave on full pay from 5‑3‑1979 to improve his qualification. He applied for extension of 514 days extra ordinary leave, without pay, from 5‑3‑1980 to 31‑3‑1981. His request for grant of extension in leave was rejected and he was informed accordingly vide Letter No.MTC/F/921, dated 26‑3‑1980 advising him to report for duty immediately, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The appellant did not comply with the above orders and did not report for duty. He was served with a charge‑sheet vide Office Order endorsement No.DMT/A&C/112‑40/35062, dated 23‑12‑1980 but it was received back undelivered. The appellant was given a final show‑cause notice through the Daily Pakistan Times, dated 14‑3‑1981, advising him to resume his duty within 10 days of the publication of notice and to explain his conduct in having absented himself from duty to the satisfaction of the competent authority, failing which ex parte decision would be taken against him. The appellant did not report for duty and he was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service and his services were terminated, w.e.f 5‑3‑1980, vide order, dated 7‑5‑1981 of respondent No.2. The appellant made an appeal to the Secretary to Government to the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore which was rejected, vide order, dated 1‑1‑1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, dated 7‑5‑1981 passed by the respondent No‑2 through which the appellant has been dismissed from service is nulity in the eyes of law and is a defective order. The perusal of this impugned order shows that the appellant was charge‑sheeted, vide Office order dated 23‑12‑1980 by the Joint Director (Tech. Training), Directorate of Manpower and Training Punjab, Lahore who acted as Authorised Officer as well as Authority but he did not follow the procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. As the appellant was served with a charge- sheet, appointment of an Enquiry Officer was must as per Rule 6(6) of the above Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus, no probe was conducted into the allegations levelled against the appellant and he has been punished arbitrarily without proving the allegations against him. It has also been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has also been condemned unheard. Thus, the requirements of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, have not been followed in the case of the appellant and he has been prejudiced in the matter. The dismissal of the appellant is thus unlawful and be quashed. It has also been submitted by the appellant's counsel that discriminatory treatment has also been done with the appellant. His other colleagues who were proceeded against for the similar charges were treated sympathetically wherein the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and unjustified.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney could not rebut the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why regular enquiry was not conducted when the appellant was charge- sheeted. However, he has submitted that as the appellant did not report for duty as directed by the respondent No.2 hence, it was not possible to give him a personal hearing and the appellant was himself responsible for this fault.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also studied the impugned order, dated 7‑5‑1985 of the Joint Director (Tech. Training), Directorate of Manpower and Training Punjab, Lahore. Para. (v) of the order is reproduced below:‑

(v) Whereas he was charge‑sheeted, vide Office Order endorsement No.DMT/A&C/112‑40/35062, dated 23‑12‑1980 but it has been received undelivered."

The impugned order makes it clear that the appellant was charge‑sheeted. It is also clear from the impugned order that no Enquiry Officer was appointed and no enquiry was conducted as per requirements of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Rules 6(6) and 6(7) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 are reproduced below:‑

"(6) Where an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee is appointed under sub‑rule (5), the Authorised Officer shall simultaneously frame a charge and communicated it to the accused together with a statement of allegations explaining the charge and other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration and require the accused, within a reasonable time which shall not be less than seven days or more than fourteen days from the day the charge has been communicate to him, to put in a written defence directly before the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be.

(7) The Authorized Officer, immediately after communicating the charge to the accused under sub‑rule (6), shall forward such record or copies thereof and such other material as is necessary for the conduct of the inquiry to the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be."

Thus, proceedings have been carried out by the Authorised Officer without appointment of an Enquiry Officer and without strictly following the Efficiency and Discipline, Rules. This defect has made a material difference in this case and has prejudiced the matter. Hence, the impugned orders are unlawful and cannot be sustained.

8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the authority to proceed as per Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by way of conducting an enquiry by appointment of any Enquiry Officer, the stage from which the lacuna had occurred so that no injustice is done to the appellant and he is not prejudiced in the matter. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service i.e., from 5‑3‑1980 to date of re‑instatement of the appellant shall also be decided by the Authorised Officer/ Authority after proceeding as mentioned above.

There is no order as to costs.

A.E.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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