Major penalty

Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.

Where a matter reached the Tribunal arising out of the case of misconduct in which major penalty had been imposed, the Court or Tribunal had to see in depth whether the charges against the delinquent had been proved in the inquiry or the inquiry was conducted in cursory or slipshod manner or in violation of principles of natural justice.

Held, that the appellant being a branch manager of the Bank having higher responsibility was appropriately imposed penalty of compulsory retirement, while co-accused being an OG-II officer and functioning under the directions of the appellant was imposed lesser penalty

Appeal was dismissed and penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the appellant was maintained.

Plea of petitioner that the letter provided to him mentioning that he had been compulsorily retired from service by the 'authority' did not mention who the authority was

Held, that it was a routine practice in large organizations that when an authority passed an order, it was communicated by the organization's office to the relevant official

Use of the word authority in the letter itself showed that the competent authority i.e. President of the Bank had passed the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant and the same had been conveyed to him by the Bank officials through a letter signed by a Senior Vice President and an Assistant Vice President

Appeal was dismissed and penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the appellant was maintained.

Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.

When the appellant (Ex-Civil Judge) had refuted the allegations, in such eventuality the matters involved controversial questions of facts which could not have been decided without detailed scrutiny and holding a regular inquiry

Termination of services with stigmatic charges, without holding a regular inquiry, degenerated a host of adverse assumptions against one's character, which had bearing on one's reputation and goodwill for his future career

Thus, it offended right to life and dignity as enshrined under Arts. 9 & 14(1) of the Constitution

Competent Authority must not dispense with the regular inquiry that could be necessary to probe into charge, particularly when there was likelihood of imposition of major penalty of termination of service if the allegation was proven because it would result into grave miscarriage of justice and prejudice to the aggrieved civil servant

Plausible reasons were to be provided, if at all, the regular inquiry was to be dispensed with

Record revealed that the Hearing Officer duly appointed by the Administrative Committee , after affording personal hearing to the appellant, recommended him either to be re-instated or to hold regular inquiry in order to establish allegation leveled against him

However, the Competent Authority did not consider the said recommendation and proceeded to pass termination order after simply providing personal hearing to the appellant

Although the Competent Authority was not bound by the recommendation of the Hearing Officer/Inquiry Officer and had powers to differ with it, however, such power had to be exercised on the basis of duly recorded cogent and valid reasons

No cogent reasons had been assigned, in the present case, by the Competent Authority to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Officer

Appellant, as a citizen, was entitled to due process, right to be treated fairly at all times, right to procedural fairness and right to procedural propriety

Record also revealed that, in an identical matter, a regular inquiry had been held, thus, the appellant could not be subjected to the discrimination as enshrined under Art. 25 of the Constitution

Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set aside impugned orders/notifications issued by the Registrar High Court and directed him to hold regular inquiry before deciding the matter as per law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Court or Tribunal would ordinarily avoid substituting its own findings with that of the departmental authority, unless it appeared that the quantum of punishment was structured on unreasonable, irrelevant, extraneous considerations or on the face of it against the law

Concept of punishment to a delinquent public servant was founded on the principles of retribution, deterrence or reformation

Court or Tribunal, after being convinced with the findings of the departmental authority with regard to the guilt of the public servant had to concur with the quantum of punishment, unless it alarmingly did not commensurate with the charge(s)

Appellant (judicial officer) was proceeded departmentally on account of serious charges of misconduct and after holding preliminary inquiry, he was confronted with a regular departmental inquiry which followed the opportunity of personal hearing, wherein most of the charges leveled against him were duly established

Charges were very serious and keeping in view their seriousness, the appellant did not deserve any leniency

Penalty of dismissal from service was maintained

Appeal was dismissal, in circumstances.

Authorities (Department of Local Government and Community Development) did not challenge re-instatement order of the High Court but instead passed fresh dismissal order against the petitioner/employee without holding regular inquiry

Legality

Stance of the petitioner was that not only under the law Tehsil Municipal Officer was the competent authority (and not the Administrator), but he had also denied allegations/charges against him, therefore, regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with

Record revealed that the petitioner was reinstated into service pursuant to order passed by the High Court in earlier round of litigation

Respondents/authorities, however, in order to frustrate said order, instead of challenging the same before higher forum, passed a fresh order (impugned order) of dismissal from service

Mala fide/defiance on the part of the respondents was also floating from the report/para-wise comments submitted by them in the present case

It was a case of deliberate defiance of previous order passed by the High Court on part of respondents/authorities, which amounted to frustrating the fundamental stone of the scheme of administration of justice

Willful, deliberate and contemptuous attempt to frustrate the order of the High Court could attract penal consequences

There was nothing on record to show that the petitioner procured his appointment through fraud or illegal means

Employee should not be made to suffer for action or inaction of the authority who was obliged to follow the law

High Court set aside impugned dismissal order issued by the respondents/ departmental authorities

Constitutional was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was appointed to the post of lecturer on contract basis for a period of five years and the period had expired, therefore, indulgence in the matter was uncalled for

Contract employee was debarred from approaching High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Only remedy available to contract employee was to file suit for damages alleging breach of contract

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against employee (Data Entry Operator) of National Database and Registration Authority ('NADRA') was that he was involved in illegal processing of CNICs of non-nationals

On rejection of departmental appeal, the employee invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Contention of the petitioner (employee) was that competent authority could not enhance the quantum of punishment from reduction to a lower post for a period of two years, as recommended by the inquiry committee to dismissal from service

Validity

Record revealed that confessional statement was made by the petitioner which was in his own writing; he affixed his thumb impressions and signatures on it; and while admitting receiving Rs. 15,000/= as bribe for the illegal processing of CNIC form each person, he had stated that he had processed about 40 forms, meaning thereby that as per his own confession he had taken bribe amounting to Rs. 600,000/=

All the legal and codal formalities had been completed, in the present case, by the respondents/department

Even otherwise, the employees of National Database and Registration Authority ('NADRA') were to be proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, as the same were adopted by NADRA under the non-statutory Regln. 23 of the National Database and Registration Authority Employees' (Service) Regulations, 2002 ('the Regulations 2002')

Constitutional petition filed against the NADRA was not maintainable, the terms and conditions of the services of employees of NADRA are governed under master and servant rules, as the Regulations 2002 are non-statutory

Petitioner failed to point any violation of Rules and Regulations

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where a matter reached the Tribunal arising out of the case of misconduct in which major penalty had been imposed, the Court or Tribunal had to see in depth whether the charges against the delinquent had been proved in the inquiry or the inquiry was conducted in cursory or slipshod manner or in violation of principles of natural justice.

Held, that the appellant being a branch manager of the Bank having higher responsibility was appropriately imposed penalty of compulsory retirement, while co-accused being an OG-II officer and functioning under the directions of the appellant was imposed lesser penalty

Appeal was dismissed and penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the appellant was maintained.

Plea of petitioner that the letter provided to him mentioning that he had been compulsorily retired from service by the 'authority' did not mention who the authority was

Held, that it was a routine practice in large organizations that when an authority passed an order, it was communicated by the organization's office to the relevant official

Use of the word authority in the letter itself showed that the competent authority i.e. President of the Bank had passed the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant and the same had been conveyed to him by the Bank officials through a letter signed by a Senior Vice President and an Assistant Vice President

Appeal was dismissed and penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the appellant was maintained.

Evil ways get deeply seated in those who fall prone to them in early stages of life, making this almost impossible for them to let the wickedness go

Judge should be above any fault of character, otherwise little semblance of justice judiciary finds in society will give way to total chaos.

In absence thereof the order of major penalty could not sustain.

Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.

Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.

Plea of the petitioner/bank was that the termination orders of employees-respondents were wrongly set aside by National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) as they (respondents)held general body meeting of CBA during office hours

Validity

Petitioner-bank had treated the absence(allegation) as the violation of S.27(B) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, whereas there was no charges of inefficiency, indiscipline, dishonesty or wilful negligence while performing official duties for the petitioner-bank

No allegation of misconduct as defined in Regln. 2(4) of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Officer Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 were made against the respondents, whereas they were terminated on the allegation of absence from the duty for participating in trade union activities

Dispute between the parties was, thus, an industrial one and not an individual dispute

National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) had validly exercised the jurisdiction in entertaining the grievance petition filed by the respondents under S.33 of Industrial relations Act, 2012

No illegality or irregularity was found in the concurrent judgments passed by NIRC

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ordinarily major penalty could not be imposed unless a detailed inquiry was conducted; however, this was not an absolute rule

Where sufficient evidence was available on record, a detailed inquiry could be dispensed with and after confronting the delinquent official with the available evidence and providing him an opportunity to explain his position, the inquiry officer could record findings and make his recommendations.

Ordinarily major penalty could not be imposed unless a detailed inquiry was conducted; however, this was not an absolute rule

Where sufficient evidence was available on record, a detailed inquiry could be dispensed with and after confronting the delinquent official with the available evidence and providing him an opportunity to explain his position, the inquiry officer could record findings and make his recommendations.

Appellant-police official took up the plea that he was fatigued with over work and upon refusal of his request for leave by the SHO he absented himself from duty on account of his physical condition, and that he had tendered a medical certificate issued by the Government Hospital

Validity

No medical certificate was available on the Court's record

Service Tribunal took into account the 27 prior instances during appellant's service when he was punished with minor penalties for absenting himself from duty without approval

Provision of S. 5(1)(b)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, required reasons to be recorded for initiating proceedings against a government servant or for documentary evidence to be available with the department to justify such action

Neither documentary evidence nor reasons were available in the show-cause-notice or in the impugned dismissal order passed against the appellant

Appellant had been subjected to a major penalty terminating his service prematurely

Spirit of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 was that such terminal punitive action against a civil servant should be taken after an inquiry had been conducted

In the present case, whether the appellant had a satisfactory explanation for his absence for the period mentioned in the show-cause-notice had not been attended to by the department

Opportunity to record evidence ought to have been granted to the appellant

Likewise, the availability of documentary evidence, if any, with the department that justified dispensation of an inquiry ought to have been disclosed/confronted to the appellant

In the absence thereof, the impugned punishment had been imposed upon the appellant without complying with the provisions of the law

Impugned dismissal order of appellant was set aside and he was reinstated in service

Supreme Court directed that the department shall conduct an inquiry into the allegation of wilful absence from duty against the appellant, and in case the appellant succeeded in making out his defence, the matter of giving him back benefits shall also be decided by the competent authority

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Allegation against all three accused persons was of inefficiency and misconduct for failing to abide by the departmental rules on storage of scrap stock

Major penalty of reduction in pay to one lower stage in time scale had been imposed on the appellant without an opportunity to demonstrate that the responsibility for the alleged inefficiency was shared and he should not be singled out

Enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service attributed malice and concealment of pilferage to the appellant, which were altogether new charges regarding which a regular inquiry was necessary and could not be dispensed with

Failure by the appellant to object against the dispensation of regular enquiry could not bestow legality/validity upon an administrative action that was deficient in meeting the legal standards of fairness and propriety in disciplinary proceedings

Appellant was apparently punished for misappropriating property of department but without charging him with the same or confronting him with the adverse material sustaining the allegation

Supreme Court observed that it would be lawful, appropriate and fair that a regular enquiry was conducted to the extent of responsibility of the appellant for his alleged misconduct, and if culpable, the lawful penalty that may be imposed on him

Supreme Court set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and remanded his case to the department for holding regular enquiry after giving him full opportunity of representation in accordance with law.

Allegation against all three accused persons was of inefficiency and misconduct for failing to abide by the departmental rules on storage of scrap stock

Major penalty of reduction in pay to one lower stage in time scale had been imposed on the appellant without an opportunity to demonstrate that the responsibility for the alleged inefficiency was shared and he should not be singled out

Enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service attributed malice and concealment of pilferage to the appellant, which were altogether new charges regarding which a regular inquiry was necessary and could not be dispensed with

Failure by the appellant to object against the dispensation of regular enquiry could not bestow legality/validity upon an administrative action that was deficient in meeting the legal standards of fairness and propriety in disciplinary proceedings

Appellant was apparently punished for misappropriating property of department but without charging him with the same or confronting him with the adverse material sustaining the allegation

Supreme Court observed that it would be lawful, appropriate and fair that a regular enquiry was conducted to the extent of responsibility of the appellant for his alleged misconduct, and if culpable, the lawful penalty that may be imposed on him

Supreme Court set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and remanded his case to the department for holding regular enquiry after giving him full opportunity of representation in accordance with law.

Competent Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service to civil servant, against the recommendation of Inquiry Officer

Validity

Competent Authority was not bound by recommendation of Inquiry Officer regarding award of penalty to accused officer

While disagreeing and awarding higher penalty than recommended by Inquiry Officer, Competent Authority had to firstly provide opportunity of hearing to accused officer and secondly he had to pass a reasoned order with conscious application of mind

Although Inquiry Officer found civil servant to be negligent in his conduct and charge of 'mal-administration' was not proved, yet Competent Authority while awarding major penalty of dismissal from service found that there was substantial evidence on record to prove the charges

No reference to the evidence or material was available which found favour with Competent Authority to award major penalty of dismissal from service

No allegation was on record that accused civil servant was guilty of corruption or of financial gain

Supreme Court set aside the order passed by Competent Authority and remanded the matter to it for decision afresh after hearing the civil servant

Appeal was allowed.

Major penalty, as the term suggested, was a serious and extreme punishment; in the context of Service Laws, it could mean the end of a person's career

Such penalty could not be imposed lightly and without proof of serious allegations

Even where there was a charge of inefficiency, such inefficiency must be of a lasting character

Single slip or lapse on the part of a Government servant, would not justify inference of his being inefficient

Punishment awarded must be proportionate to and commensurate with the magnitude of the offence.

Respondent, who was employee of financial institution, was compulsorily retired on the allegation of embezzlement and negligence but Service Tribunal converted the punishment into reduction in lower scale for five years

Validity

People employed in financial institutions dealt with public money and any negligence or default on their behalf could lead to loss of faith in such institutions

Once public had lost confidence, it was extremely difficult, painstaking and time consuming to rehabilitate the same

Supreme Court took serious notice of misappropriation conducted in a financial institution

Matter was that of late posting of money and no ultimate loss was sustained by customers

Service Tribunal was not justified in reducing punishment of respondent, which was set aside and punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by departmental authorities was restored

Appeal was allowed.

Civil servant remained absent due to his illness and authorities without holding regular inquiry, dismissed him from service

Service Tribunal converted penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service

Validity

In view of allegations levelled against civil servant and several applications for leave on medical grounds as also medical certificates submitted by him before competent authority in department and realization of department itself that he needed to be examined by a Board regarding his health, it was imperative and in the interest of justice that a regular inquiry should have been conducted

For awarding a major penalty of dismissal from service and in case where documentary evidence was lacking, a regular inquiry was called for

Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal and reinstated the civil servant in service

Appeal was allowed.

Civil servant remained absent due to his illness and authorities without holding regular inquiry, dismissed him from service

Service Tribunal converted penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service

Validity

In view of allegations levelled against civil servant and several applications for leave on medical grounds as also medical certificates submitted by him before competent authority in department and realization of department itself that he needed to be examined by a Board regarding his health, it was imperative and in the interest of justice that a regular inquiry should have been conducted

For awarding a major penalty of dismissal from service and in case where documentary evidence was lacking, a regular inquiry was called for

Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal and reinstated the civil servant in service

Appeal was allowed.