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. 505 of 1985, decided on 10th November, 1985.
‑‑‑R.6(1)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Suspension‑‑Not a penalty warranting submission of appeal‑‑Can be resorted to and continued in cases of alleged embezzlement and misappropriation to present further repetition or in cases where charge if proved accused would be liable to dismissal or removal from service‑ --Suspension ordered for alleged misappropriation/ embezzlement and order passed by competent authority initially and for further continuances‑ ---Proceedings in progress‑‑Service Tribunal, in circumstances, refusing interference in suspension order.
Appellant in person.
Muhammad Sadiq Hully, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.
‑Azizur Rehman, Senior Clerk, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director Health Services, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Assistant Director, Health Services, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant Azizur Rehman has prayed that the order,‑ dated 2‑8‑1984, regarding his suspension, passed by the Assistant Director, Health Services (respondent No.2) may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as a Cashier in Quaid‑e‑Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur. The accounts of the appellant were checked and audited and the shortage of Rs.33,132.65 was discovered. Beside that there was also shortage of Rs.42,468.62 out of boys' fund. Consequently a criminal case was got registered against the appellant. The Inquiry Committee also held the appellant guilty but in view of the registration of the case with the Police, the departmental action against the appellant was deferred and the appellant was re‑instated in the service on 1‑10‑1974 after suspension on 4‑3‑1974. Subsequently, the appellant was again suspended on 2‑8‑1984 by the Assistant Director Health, under the directive of the Government and the period of suspension was extended from time to time. The Departmental Inquiry against the appellant is in progress and now the appellant is feeling aggrieved against the suspension order.
4. Before the case could be admitted to the regular hearing, the departmental comments were obtained over the appeal and after providing a copy to the appellant, he was heard.
5. The appellant contended that previously he was suspended on 4‑3‑1974 and re‑instated on 1‑10‑1974. The appellant stated that the Assistant Director without justification again suspended him on 2‑8‑1984 and furthermore he could not extend his suspension period.
6. We have heard the appellant as well as perused the relevant record including the Departmental comments. Without prejudice to the merits of the criminal case registered against the accused or the disciplinary proceedings under Punjab Governments (Efficiency s Discipline) Rules, 1975, pending against the appellant undisputedly as a result of audit report, the appellant is involved in the misappropriation /embazzlement of Government funds as well as boys, fund to the extent of Rs.65,101.17. Regardless of the fact that the suspension is not a penalty against which the appeal could be submitted and heard, but we could have redressed the appellant in case of suspension, provided the order was issued without any lawful authority or without any justification. In the instant case, the Assistant Director Health is a lawful authority as well as he has the support of the Government to suspend the appellant and he has also got the suspension period extended from time to time w.e.f. 2‑8‑1984. According to the Government's instructions to which meets the requirement of natural justice in addition to the legal justice, the suspension can be continued in cases of embezzlement and misappropriation to prevent further repetition. Beside that the suspension can also be ordered as well as continued in cases in which the charge if approved, the accused is liable to be dismissed or removed from the service.
7. Hence, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer