Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 116(R) of 1985, decided on 7th September, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr.3 & 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Withholding of increment for one year‑ Civil servants refusal to perform duties‑‑Imposition of penalty for such refusal‑‑Validity‑‑Civil servant, held, although could make request for help in her duties but under no circumstances such civil servant could refuse to perform duties and set forth conditions‑‑Right course for appellant was to perform duties and make representation for charge of such duties‑‑Penalty imposed on civil servant withholding one year's increment, without postponing future increments, being considerate and lenient order, appeal against such penalty was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant in person.

Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan with Dr. Nadir Khan and Muhammad Aslam for the State.

Date of hearing: 19th August, 1986.

‑‑The appellant, Mrs. Sabra Hassan, Lecturer (B‑17) in Home Economics, Federal Government College for Women, F‑7/2, Islamabad has come in appeal against the impugned order, dated 25th October, 1984. The extract of which is appended below: ‑‑

"Government of Pakistan

Federal Directorate of Education

Islamabad, the 25th October, 1984.

No. F.5‑49/81‑(CA)‑FDE‑‑Consequent upon disciplinary action taken against Mrs. Sabra Hassan Lecturer in Home Economics, Federal Government College for Women, F‑7/2, Islamabad, the President has been pleased under Rule 3 read with Rule 4 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 to withheld her one increment falling due on 1‑12‑1984 for one year only without postponing her future increments."

The appellant has appealed against the penalty imposed on her as stated above but her appeal was withheld, vide letter No. F.5‑49/81 (CA)‑FDE, dated 27th May, 1985.

2. The case of the appellant is that she was employed as Lecturer in Home Economics in the Federal Government College for Women, F‑7/2, Islamabad since 17‑5‑1981. On 3‑11‑1983 the appellant received a letter from Incharge, Home Economics Department, Federal Government College for Women, F‑7/2, Islamabad, directing her to stay with the students during nights at Residence (College premises) in respect of B.Sc. Home Economics Residence Programme. This was not a part of the duties of the appellant. As such the Incharge, Faculty of Home Economics, was informed by the appellant that she was looking after the performance of the students residing there which would include checking and evaluating their meals at breakfast, Lunch, afternoon tea and dinner, checking and evaluating their individual duties as hostess, housekeeper, waitress etc. Even this extra work was in addition to the appellant's regular college duty i.e. from 8‑30 a.m. to 1‑30 p.m. In fact this extra duty should have been performed by the Resident Adviser for which a post was specifically created in B‑16. Despite these facts, the appellant never refused her superiors orders and agreed to stay upto dinner time every day with the students.

3. However, on 12‑11‑1983, the appellant received a letter from the Director‑General, Federal Government Educational Institutions (respondent No. 2) directing her to continue conducting practicals of 4th Year class according to the schedule and stay with the students during nights as well till the Resident Adviser becomes available. To this, the appellant submitted that all the preparations were made for the scheduled practicals but it was not possible for her to stay at nights with the students neglecting her minor children at home. The appellant also mentioned that prior to her joining the College, the College Administration handled the Residence Programme by assigning one of the staff members residing in the College Hostel to stay with the students. The appellant also requested respondent No. 2 to excuse her from staying with the students.

4. Since the appellant sent her reply direct to respondent No. 2 on the above‑quoted direction to stay with the students, she received an explanation memo. asking her to explain why she had sent a reply without intimating the Principal, despite the instructions issued by the Ministry of Education Circular No. 5‑49/81‑CA (DFGEI), dated 7‑10‑1982. According to these instructions, all appeals, petitions, representations could be submitted through proper channel. As a matter of fact, the appellant's letter, it was contended, addressed to respondent No. 2 was neither a petition nor representation against the order of Principal (respondent No. 3). It was just a reply to the letter which the Director‑General, F.G.E.I. wrote directly to the appellant. It was submitted that there was otherwise no reason for not standing the letter through respondent No. 3. It was mere an oversight which was entirely unintentional. The appellant did not at all bypass respondent No. 3 and flout the Government instructions.

4. Meanwhile the Acting Principal on 24‑11‑1983 issued the schedule of 108 days/nights stay programme for practicals deputing another Lecturer to stay with the students in the Residence duty The extracts of which are given below:‑‑

"Federal Government College for Women, F‑7/2, Islamabad.

Dated 24‑11‑1983.

Consequent upon the refusal of Mrs. Sabra Hassan, Lecturer in Home Management to take full responsibility of 4th Year B.Sc. (Home Economics). Home Management Practical the undersigned on directive of the Director‑General, Federal Government Educational Institutions and the Principal, has made the following arrangement to avoid unnecessary delay in the conduct of the said practical.

Mrs. Farida Durrani, Lecturer in Home Economics Education and Home Management, has now been assigned the entire responsibility of conducting the 4th Year B.Sc. (Home Economics) Home Management Residence Practical. The revised schedule for the said practical is as follows: ‑‑

(Sd.)

(Principal)."

5. However, despite the above‑mentioned Office Order in which the question of night stay was finalised and assigned to another Lecturer, the appellant again received a letter No. F.5‑49/81‑CA (DFGEI), dated 27/30‑11‑1983 from respondent No. 2 directing her to stay with the students during night. In reply to this letter, the appellant informed respondent No. 2 on 1‑12‑1983 that the matter had already been settled vide the above‑quoted letter No. F.20/79(F.G.C.W.), dated 24‑11‑1983.

6. It was contended by the appellant that in spite of a very clear letter on the subject, as explained above, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice No. F.5‑49/81‑CA (DFGEI), dated 13‑3‑1984 by respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Ministry of Education) asking her to explain her conduct in this regard. The appellant submitted her reply to this show‑cause notice on 27‑3‑1984. It was submitted by the appellant in person that she never at any stage intended to disobey the orders of respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3. She had been all along requesting both verbally and in writing which is available on record that because of her domestic circumstances and in view of a rather bad health state of her minor children, it was not possible for her to stay with the students at night. It was also pointed out that previously other Lecturers were always made to perform this duty of staying with the students at night as a help to the Incharge Lecturer for Home Economics Classes. But in her case such a help was never forthcoming. The appellant further submitted that she performed this duty over and above her daily routine of teaching assignment for over two years but it became almost impossible for her to leave her children alone for a long period in their state of bad health. It was further contended that it would have been only reasonable if her request was acceded to rather than making a point of prestige both by respondents 2 and 3. The fact that the post of Resident Adviser (Female) for Home Economics was sanctioned to carry out these duties exclusively goes to prove that it was not possible for the Lecturer, Home Economics, to carry out this extra duty for unlimited period. It was contended that for these reasons alone repeated requests were made by the appellant to respondent No. 3 to make such arrangements which were helpful to the appellant to overcome this difficult situation. In view of these mitigating circumstances, therefore, the punishment awarded to the appellant is in fact out of proportion and without giving due thought to the circumstances prevailing in the Institution. It was contended that the orders imposing the penalty on the appellant withholding one increment should r struck down as unfair and unjust.

7. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the penalty imposed on the appellant for withholding one increment for one year from 1‑12‑1984 vide notification cited above is a minor penalty. It was contended that in the show‑cause notice, as a matter of fact, it was indicated that in view of the circumstances, the appellant could be awarded a major penalty including the dismissal. The learned counsel for respondents stated that in fact a lenient view was taken by the Authority in this case which is evident from appellant's own statement that she did not obey the clear orders given to her to stay with the students vide letter No. F.5‑49/81‑(CA)‑DFGEI, dated 27/30th November, 1983 which is reproduced below:

"To

The Principal,

Federal Government College,

for Women, F‑7/2,

Islamabad.

Mrs. Sabra Hassan, Incharge Home Management Programme was specifically directed vide this Directorate's Memo. No. F.5‑49/81 (CA)‑DFGEI, dated 12‑11‑1983, to stay with the students and perform night duty till such time a Resident Adviser is appointed. She should carry out the Government Orders failing which she should be warned that stringent disciplinary action would be taken against her which may result in her dismissal from Government service on account of gross misconduct.

2. Mrs. Sabra Hassan may please be informed accordingly and her compliance report for performance of night duty sent to this Directorate.

(Sd.)

Brig.

(Bashir Ahmed Malik)

Director‑General General.

8. It was brought out that on every occasion the appellant made flimsy excuses not to obey the clear orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It was indicated that the appellant was in fact a constant source of indiscipline and was guilty of violating the Government instructions. This tantamounts to misconduct and warranted major penalty of dismissal. It was not always possible for respondent No. 3 to assign the duty of staying at night with the students to other Lecturers. If it was, however, done, it was merely a stopgap arrangement and certainly a favour to the appellant. It could not be taken as a routine matter. Also, it was pointed out that previously in the beginning, the students of Home Economics were housed in the main Girls Hostel of the College and it was easier than for another Lecturer to look after them at night. However, since a separate building has been constructed as residence for the Home Economics students, it was not always possible either for the Hostel Warden or another Lecturer to perform this duty of staying in the same building. This was so because there was no separate residence provided where Lecturer could stay there permanently except for living in a room at night. The Hostel Warden could also not come and check at night the students living in this residence. The distance between the Hostel building and this Residence for the Home Economics students does not permit such arrangements at night. The insistance of the appellant not to obey the instructions of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 created a very difficult situation for respondent No. 3. It became very difficult to keep proper discipline among the staff members. The arrangements made vide letter, dated 24‑11‑1983 quoted above, were to say the least, the outcome of the appellant's refusal to obey the orders on the subject which is given in the first paragraph of the said letter. There would have been no need to assign this task to another Lecturer as stated in the letter if the appellant were to carry out the duties connected with her job. This clearly shows that respondent No. 3 was in fact forced to resort to such a stopgap measure only to overcome this unpleasant situation created by the appellant.

9. As regards the charge of not submitting her explanation through respondent No. 3, it may be stated that this only goes 'to prove that the appellant had inherent impulse not to follow the orders /instructions as a routine habit. This procedure of submitting explanation and replies to letters directly written by respondent No. 2 to any defaulting member of staff is a routine matter and is well known to everyone. It is not possible to accept that the appellant did so without actually intending to show her annoyance to respondent No. 3 on the subject of explanation called for by respondent No. 2. It is an indication of the mental built‑up of the appellant.

10. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned 'counsel for respondents that the penalty imposed on the appellant was far too lenient in view of the circumstances explained above.

11 . In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that although the appellant did have a case to make a request for help in her duties of staying at night at the residence of the Home Economics students but under no circumstances she could refuse to perform the duties only on her own conditions. The right course for the appellant should have been to continue to perform the duties and make representation at the same time. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the penalty imposed on the appellant withholding one year's increment without postponing her future increments is a considerate and lenient order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.

A.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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