Find a Lawyer

Case No.255 of 1986, decided on 27th May, 1986.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX at 1974)‑‑

‑‑‑R. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, fi3 R.9(a)‑‑ Dismissal from service on account of conviction from Court‑‑No show‑cause notice served on civil servant before such dismissal‑‑Held, it was mandatory for Authority to serve show‑cause notice to suet. civil servant and to take decision in accordance with R. 9(a) of Rules, 1975‑‑Failure to serve such notice would render dismissal order as without lawful authority‑‑Case was remanded to Authority with direction to issue show‑cause notice before proceeding afresh against such civil servant.

Counsel with the Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Kazim Ali, Exh‑J.V. Teacher, Government Primary School, Lambwala has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the District Education Officer, Sheikhupura and the Deputy Director, Education (Adorn.), Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that his dismissal is against the law so laid down under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, therefore, the impugned orders be quashed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was convicted under sections 307/34 and 326/34, P.P.C. by the Magistrate Section 30, Sheikhupura for seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000. The appellant filed an appeal against this sentence before the Lahore High Court. The appellant was acquitted under section 307/34, P.P.C. but sentence against under section 326/34, P.P.C. was upheld by Lahore High Court, Lahore. The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which is still pending. However, after completion of the imprisonment by the appellant which ended on 23‑12‑1984, the appellant made an application for his re‑instatement to the District Education Officer, Sheikhupura and he was re‑instated in service, vide order, dated 23‑2‑1985. Subsequently another order was passed by the same authority, vide his order, dated 25‑11‑1985, wherein the appellant was dismissed from service, with immediate effect on account of his conviction from the Court. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Director, Education (Adorn.), Lahore and after awaiting 90 days, the appellant has made this appeal within next 30 days. Hence this appeal.

4. The appeal is still at the preliminary stage of hearing, but the para-wise comments have been received from the Department. We convert it into regular hearing and decide the appeal accordingly.

5. The learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents has produced the record of this case with their assistance.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the completion of mandatory Rule 9(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 has not been done, therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted on this score alone.

7. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the Department has conceded in their own written statement that they were not required to issue any show‑cause notice under Rule 9(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. We have perused Rule 9(a) of the Punjab Civil A Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which reveals that it was mandatory by the Authority to issue the show‑cause notice to the appellant and to take a decision in provision with ibid Efficiency and Discipline Rules. As no notice has been served upon the appellant, the plea taken by the appellant's counsel is accepted.

9. Resultantly the case is remanded to the Authority with the direction to proceed against the appellant under Rule 9(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, if they desire so. The impugned order is set aside and the appellant is directed to H be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be decided by the authority after conducting the proceedings afresh in accordance with the law as mentioned above.

There is no order as to costs.

A. A. 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.