2006 PLP 1030 (SCMR)

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.

The petitioner was proceeded against for absence from duty on nine occasions between 11-2-1996 to 22-1-1997 which culminated into the penalty of reduction from BS-19 to BS-18 vide order, dated 28-4-2001. His review petition having been dismissed, he approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal who found that the appeal was barred by time. On merits, it was held that three inquiries held against the petitioner found him guilty of being an habitual absentee. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. (2). The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 4-2-1998, the Authorized Officer addressed a show-cause notice under Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 proposing a penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of three years. He maintains that since the Authorized Officer was competent to impose minor penalty, no further proceedings in the matter could be taken and, therefore, major penalty of reduction in rank was uncalled for. He next maintains that the penalty was imposed on the petitioner on the basis of a fresh charge-sheet and appointment of a new Inquiry Officer although the order of remand by the authority for de novo proceedings did not permit a fresh charge-sheet and appointment of another Inquiry Officer. He lastly maintains that in view of the unblemished record of the petitioner, the penalty awarded was excessive. 2-A. The submissions have been considered. The petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice and reminders issued to him on 21-2-1998, 31-3-1998 and 26-7-1998. On 3-8-1998, the Authorized Officer submitted that case to the "Authority" with a recommendation for imposition of a major penalty. However, de novo proceedings were ordered by the Authority. From the above facts, it is clear that no order was passed disposing of the case by the Authorized Officer or by the Authority on the recommendation of the Authorized Officer and a fresh charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 2-10-2000 on the basis of which the penalty was awarded to the petitioner. The provision empowering the Authorized Officer to impose minor penalty could not be interpreted to exclude a reference to the authority by the Authorized Officer. Further, this point was not agitated before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and, therefore, we do not feel inclined to examine it any further which is repelled. As far as the second contention is concerned, the allegations in the second charge-sheet were substantially the same as in the first charge-sheet and inquiry on the earlier charge-sheet having not been concluded no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. No principle of law could be pressed to invalidate the inquiry on the basis of second charge-sheet. As far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, no cause for interference is made out in view of petitioner's habitual absence, his conduct and the nature of his duties.

3. Accordingly, leave is declined and the petition dismissed. H.B.T./M-70/SC Petition dismissed.