Find a Lawyer

Case No. 749 of 1980.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--

---

R.

6(3)--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4--Show-cause notice--Nature of punishment proposed not mentioned precisely in notice--Such notice, held, was violative of law--Penalty order imposed pursuant to such notice set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority to proceed with a fresh notice in accordance with law if so advised.

1981 P L C 161 rel.

Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Sabir for Appellant.

H.R. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

.--Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ex-S.D.O. Highways Sub-Division, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal against the orders, dated 30-6-1980 by which the appellant was compulsorily retired from service alongwith the recovery of proportionate loss to the Government and against order, dated 15-11-1980 by which the review petition was also rejected.

By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he may be re-instated in service.

Brief facts of the case are that while he was posted as S.D.O. Highways Sub-Division, Chiniot, the appellant received a show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He replied to this notice denying all the allegations levelled against him but the same did not find favour with the Authorised Officer who imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement as well as recovery of proportionate amount of loss so caused to Government. His review petition also was rejected on 15-11-1980. Hence this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the District Attorney and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had earlier moved for conducting a spot enquiry by Mian Tanvir Hussain, Director, Planning and Design, Punjab Highways Department, Lahore, but while this enquiry was still in progress he proceeded to issue a show-cause notice which, was against the spirit of the rules and in violation of law laid down by the superior Courts of this country. A grievance has also been made that again this matter came under the enquiry through Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan, Director Road Research and Material Testing Institute, Lahore, but no copy of said enquiry was provided to the appellant to furnish his defence. It has been further contended that the Authorised Officer in case of the appellant is Chief Engineer, Highways Department, therefore, the show-cause notice could have been issued by the said authority alone. 13y having short-circuited the matter the respondent had eliminated a step provided by law, which has caused great prejudice to the case of .the appellant. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that there was no shortage of material on the spot as the same stood verified by Mian Naeem-ud-Din XEN but this fact has not been taken into consideration. An exception has already been taken to the language of the show-cause notice which according to the appellant does not mention the precise punishment which was going to be awarded to the appellant and, therefore, this show-cause notice was liable to be quashed.

On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was required to make cent per cent verification of the work done by the Sub-Engineer, therefore, he was fully responsible for the action of his subordinates. With regard to the earlier enquiries with Mr. Tanvir and Mr. Nisar Ahmad it has been submitted that these were not regular enquiries but a procedure to get assistance from these two officers to verify the claim of the appellant so made by him in his explanation as well as at the time of his personal hearing. The learned D.A. assisted by the representative of the Department has fully relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondent and has prayed that appeal is without any force and liable to be dismissed.

Without going into the merits of the case the appeal is liable toy be accepted on the short ground that the show-cause notice has failed to give the precise punishment which the appellant was liable to get For his misconduct. This conclusion of ours is based on 1981 P L C 1611 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that where the nature of the penalty proposed is not mentioned and the quantity of the proposed punishment is not intimated the case of the accused personal suffers from material prejudice in his defence.

In view of the Above authoritative pronouncement of the highest Court of the realm we have no other alternative but to declare that the show-cause notice in this case is violative of the law laid down. Under these circumstances we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the respondent to proceed with a fresh show-cause notice in accordance with the law, if so advised.

A.E. Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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