Inefficiency

2018 PLC(CS)N 4 SERVICE TRIBUNAL FOR MEMBERS OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY Judicial Precedent

S. 5Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.3Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.367Judicial officerAllegation of leaving un-signed judgments/orders by Judicial OfficerInefficiencyRemoval from service

In the present case, three hundred and fifty six announced judgments/orders pertaining to years 2008 to 2010 were either not written or signed by the Judicial Officer

Appellant Judicial Officer had adopted procedure for dispensing justice by allowing the relief to the parties without any formal written and signed judgments/ orders

Issuance of succession/guardianship certificates and Robkars for release of offenders did not absolve the appellant of his duty of deciding the cases through signed judgments expeditiously

Judgment by a Trial Court not announced within thirty days of hearing of the case was impaired in value and Judicial Officer exposed himself to disciplinary proceedings

Judicial Officer was in a habit of not passing judgments/orders within time for which no valid explanation had been rendered

Competent authority was left with no option but to award major penalty

Judicial Officer had prejudiced the rights of the adversaries

Judicial Officer had the sworn / divine duty to administer justice without undue delay for the reason that "justice delayed is justice denied"; he was to adhere to the rule of speedy disposition of cases

Delay in disposal of cases was the major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in judicial system

Acts of delinquency/inefficiency committed by the appellant Judicial officer were grave in nature

Appellant was burdened with a high sense of duty and responsibility in discharge of his obligation to administer justice

Inefficiency on the part of appellant in managing his case load and failure to organize and supervise the court personnel was an act of gross inefficiency

Penalty of removal from service awarded to the appellant was proportionate to the gravity of overt act committed by him in performance of his duties

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 SCMR 356 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

InefficiencyMajor penaltyDispensation of regular enquiryLegalityFact-finding enquiry did not accuse the appellant personally for committing misappropriation

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.

2017 PLC(CS) 676 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

InefficiencyMajor penaltyDispensation of regular enquiryLegalityFact-finding enquiry did not accuse the appellant personally for committing misappropriation

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.

2016 SCMR 189 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)Civil serviceDismissal from serviceGroundsJoining service belatedlyInefficiencyProof

Respondents were appointed as Constables (BS-5) in police department, however their appointment letters were never sent to them by registered post, nor were they ever informed about the same by telephone or verbally

Respondents collected their appointment letters from the police department through their own efforts, and immediately joined service

Dismissal of respondents in such circumstances on grounds of belatedly joining service and inefficiency was not justified

Even the letters of dismissal from service were never sent to the respondents through registered post and they were only informed about their dismissal verbally

Supreme Court directed that respondents be reinstated in service

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2016 PLC(CS) 682 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)Civil serviceDismissal from serviceGroundsJoining service belatedlyInefficiencyProof

Respondents were appointed as Constables (BS-5) in police department, however their appointment letters were never sent to them by registered post, nor were they ever informed about the same by telephone or verbally

Respondents collected their appointment letters from the police department through their own efforts, and immediately joined service

Dismissal of respondents in such circumstances on grounds of belatedly joining service and inefficiency was not justified

Even the letters of dismissal from service were never sent to the respondents through registered post and they were only informed about their dismissal verbally

Supreme Court directed that respondents be reinstated in service

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2013 PLC(CS) 928 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

R. 4(1)(b)InefficiencyMajor penalty

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.