Serious allegation of misconduct

2020 PLC(CS) 1281 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5 (1) (ii) & 6Employee of Higher Education CommissionAllegation of misconductRemoval from serviceCopy of inquiry report having not been provided to the employee along with show cause noticeEffectEmployee was removed from service after conducting regular inquiry

Contention of employee was that statement of allegations was not provided with the charge sheet and no inquiry report was accompanied with the show-cause notice

Validity

Copy of inquiry report was not given to the employee along with show cause notice

Nothing was on record that charge sheet was accompanied with the statement of allegations against the employee

Charge sheet was not issued by the order of Authorized Officer

Even impugned order whereby penalty had been imposed was not issued by the Authorized Officer

Department had not addressed the grounds taken by the employee in his departmental appeal

Departmental proceedings had been conducted in violation of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which were liable to be set aside

Impugned order whereby major penalty of removal from service had been imposed was set aside

Department would be at liberty to re-initiate departmental proceedings against the employee in accordance with Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS)N 4 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2 & 3Employee of Planning and Development DepartmentAllegation of misconductDepartmental proceedings, initiation ofCompetent authority

Secretary Planning and Development initiated departmental proceedings against the employee and he was compulsorily retired from service

Service Tribunal accepted the appeal on the ground that Secretary Planning and Development was not the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the employee

Validity

Appointing authority of employee was Additional Development Commissioner/Chief of Section/Assistant Chief

Secretary Planning and Development was not the appointing authority in the present case

Proceedings against the employee had been conducted under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001

Final order of compulsory retirement had been passed by the Secretary of the Department

Only the competent authority could initiate departmental proceedings

Competent authority was Prime Minister or any officer or authority designated by him

Prime Minister had designated the relevant appointing authorities to exercise powers as 'competent authority'

Secretary Planning and Development being not the appointing authority of the employee, he was not the Authority according to law

Conclusion drawn by the Service Tribunal was consistent with the statutory provisions of law

Appeal filed by the department was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 253 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Employee of National Bank of PakistanAllegation of misconductDismissal from servicePayment of interest was sought on the amount of provident fund from the date of dismissal till its realizationScope

Employee was terminated from service on the allegation of misconduct on 04-07-1998 whereas he was paid provident fund on 30-08-2013

Contention of petitioner was that interest was applicable on the amount of provident fund till its realization

Validity

Petitioner earlier filed constitutional petition wherein subject matter and prayer were the same as had been agitated in the present petition

Constitutional petition earlier filed had been unconditionally withdrawn and petitioner was precluded from filing the present petition

Interest on amount standing in the books of the provident fund to the credit of the member would cease on the day he left the service of the Bank

Petitioner was not entitled to any interest on the amount of provident fund standing in his name after his dismissal

Petitioner instead of collecting the amount of provident fund when it matured filed various representations before different quarters and took legal action against his dismissal order

Said action did not entitle the petitioner to claim interest on the amount of provident fund from the date of his dismissal

Employer-Bank had paid profit as per usual interest rate to the petitioner on the amount of provident fund from the date of his dismissal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 YLR 1404 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 20Pakistan Engineering Council Conduct and Practice of Consulting Engineers, Bye-laws, 1986, R. 8(3)Consultant engineerAllegation of misconductBlacklisting of firmOpportunity of hearingScopeAudi alteram partem, principle ofApplicability

Petitioner being consultant engineer was blacklisted on the allegation of mismanagement and violation of prevailing rules and procedure during execution of the project

Contention of petitioner was that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing of impugned order

Validity

Petitioner was not liable to be blacklisted without referring the matter to the Pakistan Engineering Council and penalty of removal from the list

Basic right for earning livelihood could not be snatched without adopting the legal course

Nobody could be condemned unheard

Presence of Project Director of the project did not mean that the petitioner had been afforded opportunity of defense and proving his innocence

Petitioner must have been heard prior to passing the adverse order

Impugned order being hit by the principle of audi alteram partem was not sustainable

Authorities would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him

Impugned notification was declared as null and void and non-existing

Writ petition was allowed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS)N 108 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.34 & 35Employee of Pakistan Tobacco BoardAllegation of misconductDischarge from service after issuance of show-cause noticeScopeShow-cause notice was not issued by the competent authorityRegular inquiry was mandatory as factual controversy was involved in the caseOnly authorized officer(s) could conduct inquiry as inquiry officer or inquiry committee

Provisions of Ss.34 & 35 of Pakistan Tobacco Board (Service) Rules, 1985 were not complied with nor had any authorized officer conducted inquiry

Show cause notice and impugned order of discharge from service were ab initio void, and without lawful authority

Impugned order was set aside

Petitioners-employees be deemed to be in service from the date of impugned order

Department would be at liberty to adopt proper procedure as provided under Ss.34 & 35 of Pakistan Tobacco Board (Service) Rules, 1985 but not later than two months

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS) 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr. 39 & 40Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeBank employeeAllegation of misconductDismissal from service

National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 were statutory in nature and petitioner/employee was governed by the said Rules

Petitioner/employee had right to file an application for review or appeal under R.40(1) of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 after dismissal from service before the Central Board of the Bank

Rule 40 of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 did not state that the appeal/review could only be filed if disciplinary proceedings had been initiated under the said Rules, rather it provided a right to every aggrieved employee to approach the competent authority for his grievance

Petitioner had neither availed such remedy nor had filed appeal or review against impugned order

Petitioner could only invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court if impugned memorandum of dismissal was ex facie unlawful and/or if the Authority passing order had no jurisdiction to pass such order

Petitioner had alternate remedy to approach the Central Board of the Bank for appeal or review

Finding of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Committee could not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction

Impugned decision had been taken by the Bank without mentioning the provision of law or rules

Employee could not be reinstated under constitution without dilating upon the question of facts involved in the case

Constitutional petition was converted into appeal and was sent to the competent authority being the Central Board of the Bank for redressal of grievance of employee within eight weeks

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2014 PLC(CS) 1194 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 10Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-APunjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5Termination of serviceSerious allegation of misconductAuthority dispensed with the regular inquiryRight of due process and fair trial

Services of the appellant were terminated without conducting inquiry during his probation period on the ground that he perpetrated gross misconduct by lodging a false and concocted complaint to malign his colleague

Authority ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant

Inquiry Officer instead of conducting the regular inquiry proposed to terminate the services of the appellant under S.10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Authority dispensed with the procedure of regular inquiry and passed the order of termination of appellant during his probation period

Validity

Order was not an order of termination simpliciter rather it was based upon allegation of misconduct

Order of termination in fact was an order of imposition of penalty of removal from service necessitating a regular inquiry and fair opportunity of hearing to be given by the Authority to the appellant

Serious allegation of misconduct was pending inquiry against the appellant therefore appellant's termination even during period of probation could not be ordered without finding truth of the allegation by providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant through due process of law

Right of due process and fair trial is Fundamental Right of each and every citizen of this country duly safeguarded and guaranteed under Art.10-A of the Constitution, which could not be denied in any case

No civil servant could claim salary and other benefits without performing the duty, therefore, Authority would determine as to whether or not appellant was engaged in gainful employment during the intervening period

Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, accepted the appeal in the circumstances.