Find a Lawyer

Case No. 481/257 of 1985, decided on 8th March, 1986.

‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 6‑‑Dismissal from service, without regular enquiry‑‑Effect‑ Although civil servant was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations, but no regular enquiry was conducted---Once a charge‑sheet was served, holding of regular enquiry in the matter, held, would be a must.

Mushtaq Hussain v. Medical Superintendent, Nishter Hospital, Multan and another Case No. 396/399 of 1985 rel.

‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where civil servant was dismissed from service without regular enquiry, Service Tribunal in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, re‑instated such civil servant to clothe him with status of civil servant and directed proceedings against him in accordance with Efficiency and Discipline Rules, after holding a regular enquiry if so desired by Authority.

Naseer Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

Ghulamus Sayeddain, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Syed Fida Hussain Ex‑Dispenser, Government T.B. Hospital Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Medical Superintendent, Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha and the Deputy Director of Health, Sargodha Division, Sargodha as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order dated 10‑4‑1985 passed by the respondent No. l and order dated 24‑6‑1985 passed by the respondent No.2, be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith the statement of allegations on 30th March, 1985, by Dr. Saeed Ahmad Khan, Medical Superintendent, Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge‑ sheet, which was examined by the Medical Superintendent, Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha. A show‑cause notice was also issued to the appellant on 8‑4‑1985 by the above respondent. Consequently, the appellant was held guilty of the misconduct and was dismissed from service, vide Office Order dated 10‑4‑1985 of the Medical Superintendent Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha. The appellant made an appeal which was rejected vide letter dated 26‑6‑1985 of respondent No.2. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Naseer Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ghulamus Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representatives of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that correct proceeding against the appellant has not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant was served with a charge- sheet alongwith a statement of allegations but no regular enquiry was held against the appellant. It is a mandatory provision under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules mentioned above to hold a regular enquiry after a civil servant is served with a charge‑sheet. Thus, the appellant has been dismissed from service without providing him due opportunities to produce the witnesses and defence before the Enquiry Officer to prove his innocence. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out, thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter and has been punished arbitrarily without proving his guilt. Hence, the impugned orders are unlawful, against the facts of the case and are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney after consulting the record of respondents so produced by the representatives of the respondents, could not successfully rebut the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and conceded that it is a fact that no regular enquiry was held on this case, though the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet with statement of allegations by the Medical Superintendent, Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the above legal issue and has consulted the record of this case as well. It is a fact that the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith a statement of allegations dated 30‑3‑1985 by Dr. Saeed Ahmad Khan, Medical Superintendent, Government T.B. Hospital, Sargodha. The perusal of the record also shows that no regular enquiry was conducted in this case. This Tribunal has already held in case No. 396/399 of 1985 of Mushtaq Hussain v. Medical Superintendent, Nishter Hospital, Multan and another, announced on 26‑2‑1986 that regular enquiry is must in such circumstances. The relevant para. 7 of this judgment is reproduced below: ‑

"We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant was positively served with charge‑sheet as mentioned above, therefore, it was obligatory upon the respondents to hold a regular enquiry into the case and could not proceed summarily against him, as it was against the procedure laid down under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. This being so, we without going into the merits of the case, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the respondents with the direction to hold an enquiry into this case, as once a charge‑sheet is served, holding of enquiry in the matter is a must. The appellant is re‑instated in service in order to clothe him with the status of a civil servant, and he may be proceeded according to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, after holding regular enquiry, if so desired. The period of his remaining out of service will also be decided by the respondents themselves".

8. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority with the direction to hold a regular enquiry into this case. The appellant is re‑instated in service in order to clothe him with the status of a civil servant and he may be proceeded according to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, after holding a regular enquiry, if so desired. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding as directed above.

There is no order as. to costs.

A.A Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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