1990 PLP 1554 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioners are teachers of nationalized institutions and seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 22‑10‑1987.

2. The Petitioners were proceeded against departmentally and the charges were as hereunder:‑‑

"(i) That you do not attend your classes regularly but visit the school once or twice in a month to get your salary; (ii) No student has appeared in S.S.C. Examination for the last seven years; (iii) The students are forced to leave the institution and join other high schools; (iv) Parents have been compelled to take their children to the distant towns for their education." An enquiry was conducted into these charges and by an Order dated 17‑9‑1984, two increments were stopped. The matter was brought before the Tribunal in the first round which accepted the appeals on 10‑12‑1985 and remanded the proceedings with a view to serve the enquiry report on the petitioners. The Authorised Officer supplied them a copy of the enquiry report and referred the matter for hearing to the Authority. The Authority after hearing the petitioners passed an order withholding their four increments and directing that the period of their suspension from 19‑7‑1980 to 17‑9‑1984 be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. They challenged again but the Tribunal upheld the order.

3. Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate the learned counsel for the Petitioners has taken up two legal grounds, apart from disputed findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The first legal ground is that as ultimately only a minor penalty was imposed, the Authorised Officer should have himself dealt with the case or in the alternative submitted his recommendations to the Authority for major penalty. By not doing either of these things, a duty imposed on him remained undischarged and the Petitioners not knowing the recommendations of the Authorised Officer were prejudiced by being presented before the Authority for imposition of a minor penalty. The second ground taken up is that the charge No. (ii) on which the Petitioners have been held guilty, in any case, by the Tribunal, was vague.

4. Considering that the entire departmental proceedings had concluded once and had been reopened for the benefit of the Petitioners with a view to have them a copy of the Enquiry Report, the Authorised Officer while forwarding it to them and by calling upon them to show‑cause to the Authority, why any of the penalties mentioned in rule 5 be not imposed, made it clear to them that he was not himself treating it as a minor punishment case but was referring it to the Authority for determining the punishment including a major punishment. The petitioners had full opportunity of showing cause against the show‑cause notice. They had a copy of the enquiry report and in no manner could they be said to be prejudiced. At the most the recommendation of the Authorised Officer in extenso which could be of assistance to the Authority and not available to the Petitioners, was not there. That is inconsequential.

5. As regards the vagueness of the charge, we find that none of the Petitioners, made ever a grievance of it. They gave full replies to it. A theoretical argument cannot, therefore, be raised that the charge as framed was vague.

6. So far as the factual aspect of the case is concerned, we need not go into it. As pointed out by the Service Tribunal, the enquiry report ‑deals with it at great length and even the explanation of the Petitioners bears it out.

7. No case is made out for leave to appeal and both the Petitions are dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1128/S Petitions dismissed.