Removal from Service

The controversy arose from the petitioners' removal from service despite being appointed through a formal recruitment process and allegedly fulfilling all codal formalities

It was contended that although a list of 166 similarly appointed employees had been accepted and their salaries released pursuant to a consent order, the petitioners claimed they were also covered in that list but were not reinstated that two scrutiny reports were compiled indicating that the petitioners were not at fault and the responsibility lay with the ex-director, however, the department still issued show-cause notices and removed the petitioners from service; that the service tribunal failed to properly consider these facts and previous judgments/orders, including the verification of their credentials already deemed genuine

Held: The grievance, rather the contention, of the petitioners that they were not fully covered in the list of the 166 employees and their credentials were already scrutinized by the competent authority, was not considered properly before dismissing the service appeals

In order to thrash out and reconcile the controversy to some logical end, it was deemed most advantageous and expedient to constitute a three-member committee to scrutinize the cases of the present petitioners to assess whether they fell within the category of the aforesaid 166 employees and were thus entitled for restoration/appointment in service or not

The law officer along with officials present in court also assured that the committee would consider the credentials/antecedents of all the petitioners as well as the reports and the list of employees compiled earlier, with an independent application of mind, for reaching a just and proper conclusion in the matter

All civil petitions were converted into appeals by ordering certain directions to be followed in the matter

Appeals were disposed of, in circumstances.

The controversy arose from the petitioners' removal from service despite being appointed through a formal recruitment process and allegedly fulfilling all codal formalities

It was contended that although a list of 166 similarly appointed employees had been accepted and their salaries released pursuant to a consent order, the petitioners claimed they were also covered in that list but were not reinstated that two scrutiny reports were compiled indicating that the petitioners were not at fault and the responsibility lay with the ex-director, however, the department still issued show-cause notices and removed the petitioners from service; that the service tribunal failed to properly consider these facts and previous judgments/orders, including the verification of their credentials already deemed genuine

Held: The grievance, rather the contention, of the petitioners that they were not fully covered in the list of the 166 employees and their credentials were already scrutinized by the competent authority, was not considered properly before dismissing the service appeals

In order to thrash out and reconcile the controversy to some logical end, it was deemed most advantageous and expedient to constitute a three-member committee to scrutinize the cases of the present petitioners to assess whether they fell within the category of the aforesaid 166 employees and were thus entitled for restoration/appointment in service or not

The law officer along with officials present in court also assured that the committee would consider the credentials/antecedents of all the petitioners as well as the reports and the list of employees compiled earlier, with an independent application of mind, for reaching a just and proper conclusion in the matter

All civil petitions were converted into appeals by ordering certain directions to be followed in the matter

Appeals were disposed of, in circumstances.

The principles of natural justice demonstrated in Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution require that delinquent should be given fair opportunity to contest charges levelled against him before he is found guilty

The imposition of major penalty of 'removal from service' without conducting a regular inquiry cannot be sustainable in the absence of principle of due process and transparency

No person can be unjustly penalized without being given opportunity to present his complete defence.

When the punishment has already been awarded on the allegation while considering removal, on the basis of past and closed transaction, to it amounts to violation of Art. 13 of the 'Constitution' and is considered double punishment.

Granting leave to employee envisaged continuity of his service and if he was seemingly continuing in service such period cannot be considered' absence from duty'

The absence period for which an employee has already been granted extra ordinary leave without pay cannot be considered/mentioned again while imposing him major penalty of removal from service rather it would be considered that absence period has been regularized by the authority.

Employee re-instated in service by the Service Tribunal after his acquittal in the criminal case on basis of a compromise

Legality

It was not disputed that not only at the time of issuing show cause notice but even at the time of the alleged inquiry, the respondent was incarcerated

Obviously, then, it was not within his control or domain to face and defend the charges of misconduct or his involvement in a criminal case as a free man

It is a most valuable and instinctive human right of every Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) and a convicted person to defend or challenge his indictment and conviction in accordance with the law

Right of proper defence is a vested right and not providing ample opportunity of defence is also against Article 10-A of the Constitution

In order to answer and defend the allegations of misconduct, the personal appearance of the delinquent ought to be ensured and he should be afforded not only a right to adduce evidence and call witnesses to support his innocence, but he should also be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against him

In the present case during the ex-parte departmental proceedings the inquiry officer predominantly believed the police reports and challan of criminal cases and conducted the inquiry when the respondent was behind bars and his request for deferring the inquiry proceedings till the outcome of the criminal case was not accommodated and a major penalty of removal from service was recommended and imposed

Conducting ex parte proceeding, knowing that the employee (respondent) was unable to defend the charges of misconduct was nothing but a sheer violation of due process and the principles of natural justice, thus, rendering the entire exercise ineffectual and inconsequential

Petition was converted into an appeal and partly allowed, with the directions that the order of reinstatement with back benefits passed by the Service Tribunal, shall be subject to the outcome of de novo inquiry and in this regard the competent authority of the petitioner's department shall appoint an inquiry officer who should conduct an impartial regular inquiry, and during the inquiry proceedings, the respondent should be afforded ample opportunity of defence.

Petitioner was proceeded departmentally for causing harassment at workplace and was removed from service under section 4 (4)(ii)(c) of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010

Plea raised by petitioner was that respondent/complainant invoked jurisdiction under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, during pendency of departmental proceedings

Validity

In sexual harassment cases where remedy of complaint before department was extremely sluggish and often ineffective, the concept of election (of remedy) would not be applied

Respondent/complainant had abandoned her (departmental) complaint as it appeared to be going nowhere and had filed complaint before Ombudsman

Complaint under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, gave more private, efficacious and speedy remedy in connection with a highly sensitive and personal matter, namely sexual harassment

Doctrine of election was inapplicable under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 unless a decision had already been rendered by either the Ombudsman or Inquiry Committee

Ombudsman had full power under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 to remove petitioner from service

High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction could not go into factual controversies and minutely examine evidence on record

High Court declined to interfere in the orders passed against the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners performed their duties in Labour Welfare Department, Government of Sindh until September, 2000, when a show-cause notice was served upon them under sub-rule (3) of R. 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, calling in question the genuineness of their appointments

Petitioners submitted replies to show-cause notice on 28.09.2000

Competent Authority was not satisfied with the reply of the Show-Cause notice and imposed major penalty of removal from service

Validity

In the appointment orders dated 6th December 1995 of the petitioners, it was found that clause (iii) of the appointment orders contained a condition that the services of the employee/appointee shall be governed by the Sindh Government Service Rules, meaning thereby that the services of the petitioners were being governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rules framed thereunder

Competent Authority initiated inquiry and imposed major penalty of removal from service under R. 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Petitioners were appointed and removed from services under the provisions of Rules framed under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973

Final action relating to the terms and conditions of services including but not limited to removal from service fell within the terms and conditions of the service, thus, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the competent judicial forum created to adjudicate service matters

Petitioners did not file any departmental appeal before the competent authority and service appeal before the Services Tribunal, thus the orders passed by the competent authority attained finality

Remedy against the orders of the competent authority impugned in the instant petition laid before the Services Tribunal

Petitioners had the remedy under the law to file a Service Appeal before services tribunal, but they did not

Petition was not maintainable being barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution

Petition was dismissed, accordingly.

Upon expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner (employee) applied for two years' extraordinary leave without pay, citing a job offer abroad

His leave request was rejected by PTCL advising him to resume duties immediately to avoid disciplinary action

Despite this direction, the petitioner (employee) remained absent and only communicated his willingness to rejoin PTCL five months after being instructed to resume duty, without offering any explanation for the delay

Petitioner (employee) was served with the impugned removal from service order allegedly passed without any formal charge sheet or opportunity of personal hearing, leading to the present Constitutional petition

Held: It was significant to note that five months after being told to resume duty immediately or else face disciplinary proceedings without giving any explanation for the five month delay the petitioner (employee) was again willing to join the respondents (employer) despite his request for two years extension in leave being refused five months earlier

During the five month period the respondents (employer) were left without the service of the petitioner (employee) which they might have vitally needed and his absence might have adversely affected their business as they might have had to find a suitable replacement

After not hearing from the petitioner (employee) for over five months after his request from extended leave was declined the respondents (employer) had every reason to believe that the petitioner (employee) would not be returning to work from them as he had informed the respondents (employer) that he had found a new job abroad

In fact the petitioner (employee) by his conduct and attitude over five months period did not appear to have cared less about the situation which he had left his employer in what to speak about deliberately and willfully violating his terms and conditions of service

Interest of the petitioner (employee) in returning to his job with respondents (employer) appeared to be tainted with mala fide and such conduct did not allow him to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as he did not invoke the same with clean hands

The petitioner (employee) was served with a show cause notice which he failed to reply to and was thereafter lawfully removed from service

Deliberate absence from service without explanation was sufficient ground for removal from service

Disciplinary proceedings were taken by the respondents (employer) against the petitioner (employee) on account of his unexplained absenteeism which was violation of his terms and conditions of service which led to his removal from service following a show cause notice

Petitioner's (employee) removal from service was upheld given his prolonged absence from duty without explanation which was willful and deliberate

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal to grant age relaxation for his appointment as Patwari on the basis of notification issued by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue and Estate Department, on 25.11.2016

Validity

Record transpired that on the basis of clashes between petitioner and respondent No.7, pertaining to inter se seniority, the latter submitted an application wherein he questioned appointment of the former, which, according to him, was not in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.6 and 3.12 of the Land Record Manual

Proper enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 5, the Assistant Secretary (Stamp), who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, and he submitted his recommendations

Deputy Commissioner filed the recommendations

Order for filing of the enquiry was passed on 03.07.2018 by Deputy Commissioner which was never challenged by respondent No.7 and astonishingly, on 17.07.2018 another application was submitted to respondent No.2 by mentioning the same allegations, who, on receipt of the application, directed respondent No.6 for taking further step in the light of recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and submission of compliance report

Admittedly, the matter in respect of inter se seniority became the cause for submitting the application and initiation of proceedings against the petitioner to the extent that he should be removed from service for the reasons the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, and suggested that major penalty of removal from service under the provisions of sub-rule (b)(iii) of R. 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 2011

Not only the application but appeal was also filed by respondent No.7 by impleading the present petitioner in the array of respondent; the said appeal was from the year 2017, thus, when the earlier application was filed by respondent No.7 to respondent No. 2 for initiating proceedings the appeal before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal was pending

Record further revealed that Service Appeal No. 603 of year 2017 was decided by the tribunal on 26.11.2019, wherein the dispute pertaining to the seniority of respondent No.7 with the petitioner and others was resolved

Contents of appeal filed before the Tribunal also contained the same allegations as narrated in the application which was submitted to respondent No.2

Animosity between the petitioner and respondent No.7 was of such extent that respondent No.7 could not stop himself from dragging the petitioner whereby he faced the enquiry as well as appeal which remained pending adjudication in the competent forum

Competent authority was not bound to accept the recommendations/suggestions as submitted by the Enquiry Officer

As such, the respondent No.6, while going through the entire facts of the dispute and while confronted with the proceedings of appeal before the Tribunal, had filed the enquiry, thus, if respondent No.7 was feeling aggrieved form the order of respondent No.6, the same should have been assailed before the competent forum but in no case he could submit another application to respondent No.2 with the same allegations

Likewise, respondent No.2, while considering the contents of the application so mentioned in it, had to apply his prudent mind with respect to the allegation and the fate of enquiry but he, while putting aside all the facts, either by ignorance of the basic provisions of law or intentionally, forwarded the matter with the direction to respondent No.6 to decide it in accordance with the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer

Authorized Officer in no way could impose his own findings or direct the competent authority to decide the matter in a particular manner as the competent authority was not his personal servant

Authorized Officer had to obey the law in its true spirit

So, initiating de novo enquiry or directing the competent authority to recommend the enquiry was not only misconception of law but also resulted into miscarriage of justice

Respondent No.2 was not supposed to direct respondent No.6 to comply with recommendation of the Enquiry Officer which order of respondent No.2 was nullity in the eye of law, as it was an excess of power and misuse of his authority

Petition was accordingly allowed.

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent / plaintiff on the ground that GM (HRA) had unauthorizedly and without jurisdiction issued/communicated show-cause notice and charge-sheet under paragraph 7.01 of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Service Regulations, 1996

Validity

Such finding of Trial Court was contrary to evidence available on record

When Board of Directors passed resolution amending para. 7.01 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Service Regulations, 1996, the paragraph stood amended as of the same date

Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) was a publicly listed company, and its board resolutions were also uploaded to Pakistan Stock Exchange website

Board Resolution had come into effect on the date of passing the resolution and not when it was communicated to company's management

Date of inter-office memo communicating contents of Board resolution was irrelevant for the purpose of coming into force of the resolution, which had become law on the date when Board of Directors resolved and passed the resolution to amend para. 7.01 of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Service Regulations, 1996

GM (HRA) was duly authorized and competent to issue and communicate show cause notice and charge-sheet to respondent / plaintiff

Trial Court misread the evidence on the point of authorization and jurisdiction of GM (HRA) to issue and communicate show-cause notice and charge-sheet

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed against appellant / PTCL and the case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Embezzlement or misappropriation constitutes misconduct and the duration of such embezzlement or misappropriation has little relevance

In the present case, the respondent admittedly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,24,305/- on account of electricity bills he collected from consumers before depositing the same in the Government exchequer after almost 23 days without any remorse

Tribunal approved the inquiry report which contains conceding statements on behalf of the respondent admitting that he had retained the said amount as he needed it because he was constructing a house, and therefore, did not deposit the same on time

Duration of this misappropriation, or the amount involved, is irrelevant as the act itself is sufficient to constitute misconduct

Tribunal has not given any reasons or explanation to examine the penalty imposed by the department on the touchstone of proportionality and with a stroke of a pen reduced the said penalty from "Removal from Service" to "reduction to three stages lower in pay scale for two years"

Such casual interference by the Tribunal in the penalty imposed by the department cannot be sustained

Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed by the department does not offend the law or the test of proportionality

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set-aside and order passed by the department awarding major penalty of "Removal from Service" was restored.

Embezzlement or misappropriation constitutes misconduct and the duration of such embezzlement or misappropriation has little relevance

In the present case, the respondent admittedly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,24,305/- on account of electricity bills he collected from consumers before depositing the same in the Government exchequer after almost 23 days without any remorse

Tribunal approved the inquiry report which contains conceding statements on behalf of the respondent admitting that he had retained the said amount as he needed it because he was constructing a house, and therefore, did not deposit the same on time

Duration of this misappropriation, or the amount involved, is irrelevant as the act itself is sufficient to constitute misconduct

Tribunal has not given any reasons or explanation to examine the penalty imposed by the department on the touchstone of proportionality and with a stroke of a pen reduced the said penalty from "Removal from Service" to "reduction to three stages lower in pay scale for two years"

Such casual interference by the Tribunal in the penalty imposed by the department cannot be sustained

Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed by the department does not offend the law or the test of proportionality

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set-aside and order passed by the department awarding major penalty of "Removal from Service" was restored.

In the earlier departmental proceedings, he was issued three notices for personal hearing but instead of personally appearing before the competent authority he sent his brother

Absence of petitioner from duty was confirmed by the Head Master of the School where the petitioner was serving, and the competent authority i.e. concerned District Education Officer had also visited the school and found the petitioner absent from duty

Despite that to meet the ends of justice, de novo proceedings were directed to be carried out against the petitioner on the charge of absence

Inquiry officer was deputed to probe into the matter, who found the petitioner guilty of the charge

Petitioner was also heard by the competent authority in person and after that major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Full Bench of NIRC had erred in disregarding the preponderance of uncontroverted evidence/record and rested its contrary findings upon the administrator/doctor not having been examined

Respondent had accorded his satisfaction in respect of the inquiry proceeding and appended his signature to the report without any manifest demur

Charge against the respondent was proven and it was for the petitioner-company (employer) to assess the quantum of punishment, permissible within the confines of law

Writ petition was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.

It was never the respondent's case before the High Court that the petitioner had knowledge of the misconduct at any time prior to the communication received from the insurance company; hence, no case was made out to consider the petitioner's issuance of the information/show-cause notice as being time barred

Writ petition was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Service Tribunal by way of impugned judgment converted the major penalty of removal from service into a major penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of his absence, and the absence period was treated as unauthorized absence

Tribunal proceeded to modify the penalty on two counts; one that no regular inquiry was conducted and the other that the respondent had 10 years' service

Legality

Held, that the very fact of respondent-civil servant remaining absent was not a disputed fact and thus there was no occasion for holding a regular inquiry in the matter

Being an employee for 10 years did not give any authority to the respondent on the basis of which he could stay away from his job continuously for years altogether and thus, such ground could not have been pressed for modifying the penalty imposed by the department upon the respondent giving premium to him for his misconduct

More so, looking at the travelling history of the respondent, it showed that almost twelve times the respondent had visited abroad and returned to Pakistan showing that he was involved in some other activities and thus was not interested in continuing his government service

In such circumstances the modification of penalty by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law

Impugned judgment to the extent of modification of penalty was set aside and the appeal to such extent was allowed.

Petitioner laid a challenge to an order whereby his representation against an order of removal from service had been rejected

Validity

Petitioner had concealed the factum of lodging of an FIR against him by not submitting and withholding the police verification report or even informing the Bank (employer) about his arrest and involvement in the crime report

Petitioner had breached the trust of the respondent Bank by concealing this important information and it was only upon the Bank's own discovery that it learnt that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case prior to his gaining employment in the Bank

Petitioner by doing so had display conduct unbecoming of an officer eligible to work in the public domain

Impugned order was unexceptionable since it had been passed in accordance with law and in terms of the contract of appointment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed his disqualification on the allegations of corruption and misuse of public funds and removal from presidency of the National Council for Homeopathy

Validity

Impugned notification was premised on conclusions of fact, including that the building was purchased at higher than its market price

In the absence of proper inquiry, it could not be said that the finding was based on any objectively verifiable evidence

No answer was available to one of the key defences taken by petitioner in his various responses, namely, under the scheme of the relevant law, the decision making by the Council was a collegiate exercise that could not be hijacked by petitioner alone

High Court observed that impugned notification was not backed with due process violating the petitioner's Fundamental Right to fair trial and that the countervailing factors on a balance of probability established that it was not issued bona fidely

Constitutional petition was allowed and the impugned notification was set aside.

In the earlier departmental proceedings, he was issued three notices for personal hearing but instead of personally appearing before the competent authority he sent his brother

Absence of petitioner from duty was confirmed by the Head Master of the School where the petitioner was serving, and the competent authority i.e. concerned District Education Officer had also visited the school and found the petitioner absent from duty

Despite that to meet the ends of justice, de novo proceedings were directed to be carried out against the petitioner on the charge of absence

Inquiry officer was deputed to probe into the matter, who found the petitioner guilty of the charge

Petitioner was also heard by the competent authority in person and after that major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Service Tribunal by way of impugned judgment converted the major penalty of removal from service into a major penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of his absence, and the absence period was treated as unauthorized absence

Tribunal proceeded to modify the penalty on two counts; one that no regular inquiry was conducted and the other that the respondent had 10 years' service

Legality

Held, that the very fact of respondent-civil servant remaining absent was not a disputed fact and thus there was no occasion for holding a regular inquiry in the matter

Being an employee for 10 years did not give any authority to the respondent on the basis of which he could stay away from his job continuously for years altogether and thus, such ground could not have been pressed for modifying the penalty imposed by the department upon the respondent giving premium to him for his misconduct

More so, looking at the travelling history of the respondent, it showed that almost twelve times the respondent had visited abroad and returned to Pakistan showing that he was involved in some other activities and thus was not interested in continuing his government service

In such circumstances the modification of penalty by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law

Impugned judgment to the extent of modification of penalty was set aside and the appeal to such extent was allowed.

Statement of allegations on the basis of which petitioner had been removed could not be established without regular inquiry

Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules of the Provincial Government had not been adopted by the Board of Directors of Medical Teaching Institutions

Rules and Regulations had been framed under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, for giving effect and carrying out the purpose of said Act

Employee could not be left at the mercy of the authorities

When serious allegations of misconduct had been levelled against the employee then it would stigmatize his entire service career and in such eventuality employee must have fair chance of defence in regular inquiry

Authorities should have conducted a regular inquiry before passing the impugned order of major penalty of removal from service

Authorities had violated the principle of transparency and fair play and such illegality could not sustain in the eye of law

Impugned order for removal from service was declared as illegal, unlawful and void ab initio having no legal effect

Authorities could initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the employee if so advised

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Upon attaining sixtieth year of his age employee's employment was to come to an end under Rr.17 & 18 of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 and 1980 respectively

Notice for removal from service ended employment of plaintiff as he attained retiring age for which no prior notice was required as every employee was in knowledge of his retirement age

Plaintiff was not separated from defendant Bank as a result of any disciplinary proceedings for which any prior show cause notice or any domestic proceedings relating to misconduct was required to be issued or initiated

Plaintiff was given post retirement dues as per his entitlement

Plaintiff failed to prove violation of any service Rules by defendant Bank due to which he was deprived of any of his service / employment dues and had suffered mental torture and trauma as claimed by him, relating to post retirement period

When neither any illegality was committed nor wrong was done by defendant Bank to plaintiff, then there was no question to award liquidated or special damages against defendant Bank

Plaintiff did not bring on record that he was a regular and confirmed employee of Bank

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Nothing was on record that Clerk of Court and Reader who had made submission note on the bail bond had refused to make said note

Reader of the Court should have pointed out to the concerned Judge with regard to absentia of the accused

Even Judge who had passed orders on the surety bond could not be absolved from responsibility

Neither surety nor advocate who had identified him had been produced in evidence

Even Presiding Officer who had accepted surety bonds had not been examined in the case

No action had been taken against Reader, Clerk of the Court, surety and his identifier and even Judge of the concerned Court

Civil servant had filled the bail bond and made signature over it therefore, he could not be exonerated from the charge levelled against him

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

No charge of corruption had been levelled against the employee and he had committed negligence only

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

Impugned orders passed by the Authority were not sustainable which were set aside, in circumstances

Major punishment of removal from service was converted into censure and employee was reinstated into service

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Competent authority after issuing show-cause notices to the said officers removed them from service while dispensing with regular inquiry

Contention of officers was that they had been condemned unheard and for proposed major punishment regular inquiry was mandatory

Validity

Officers were communicated adverse remarks recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports and same had been confirmed through Inspection Judge as well as Intelligence Agencies

Regular inquiry could not be dispensed with where it was proposed to impose major penalty

Neither there was any specific instance of corruption nor any complaint to be inquired into, rather it was general reputation of officers and it was an opinion not developed instantly but they had earned it during their judicial career

Competent authority had discretion to proceed departmentally against an officer

Holding an inquiry in the cases of misconduct was not a universal principle but it would depend upon case to case basis

Allegations against the officers were of such a nature that regular inquiry was not necessary

Procedure adopted by the Authority was valid and permissible under the law

Tribunal observed that civil servants were bound to be honest and should have unblemished integrity yet judicial officers were supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of sacred and sensitive nature of their duties

Repeated communication of adverse remarks with regard to doubtful integrity and reputation could be made basis for forming an opinion about reputation of a judicial officer

Complaint with regard to corruption of a judicial officer in all cases was not necessary

Regular inquiry in presence of adverse material was not mandatory

Judicial Officers proceeded for the same allegations had been awarded major penalties of compulsory retirement from service and penalty of present officers was also modified from removal into compulsory retirement from service

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

Order in question was challengeable and appellant had challenged the same through representation / review petition under S. 9 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, before competent authority which was also rejected

Intra-court appeal was filed under S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Provision of proviso to S. 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 barred remedy of intra-court appeal in cases in which relevant law provided remedy of appeal, revision or review

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the matter as proviso to S.3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 specifically barred remedy of intra-court appeal in those cases in which relevant law provided remedy of appeal, revision or review

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

Employee filed direct appeal without availing the remedy of departmental appeal, which was dismissed being not competent

Validity

No appeal would lie to Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Service Tribunal unless civil servant had preferred an appeal or application or review or representation to the departmental authority and a period of ninety days had elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was preferred

Appellant, in the present case, had filed appeal before Service Tribunal without availing remedy of departmental appeal

Direct appeal filed by the employee against original order was not competent in circumstances

Service Tribunal having dismissed the appeal on the sole ground of competency Supreme Court declined to discuss the merits of the case

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Inquiry officer recommended that 1/4th amount from the monthly salary of the petitioner be deducted as fine and he be also given last/final chance and in case he did not improve his behavior in future he be punished strictly

Authorized officer, however, removed the petitioner from service

Held, that under R.50 of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, the Authority of the petitioner was the President, Cantonment Board and the Authorized Officer was the Cantonment Executive Officer (legal position as it stood prior to the amendments made in R.50 through SRO 205(1)/2012 dated 20th February, 2012)

Procedure of inquiry under the said Rule was that if a major penalty was to be imposed the Authorized Officer was required to forward the case to the Authority along with charge and statement of allegations

In the present case, the impugned order of removal from service had been passed by the Authorized.

Inquiry officer recommended that 1/4th amount from the monthly salary of the petitioner be deducted as fine and he be also given last/final chance and in case he did not improve his behavior in future he be punished strictly

Authorized officer, however, removed the petitioner from service

Held, applying the test of proportionality to the executive discretion exercised in the present case, the order of the authorized officer, failed to maintain fair balance by removing a person from service because he absented himself from duty for a day

Executive discretion also failed the structured test of proportionality including the test of suitability and test of necessity requiring minimum impairment of the right of the petitioner

Order of removal of the petitioner was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated into service without back benefits, as he had categorically stated in court that he did not wish to seek back benefits

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

Respondent was unable to demonstrate from the record that he had made any grievance as to his confessional statement being made under duress and pressure

Award of major penalty of removal from service against the respondent was restored.

Service Tribunal set aside the order of removal of respondent-civil servant and ordered de-novo inquiry in consideration of the fact that the witness who deposed against the respondent during inquiry was not examined in presence of the respondent

Legality

Merely raising a technical question that the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined may alone not be sufficient to dispel the effect of a confession made by him before the inquiry officer

Service Tribunal had misdirected itself by taking a too lenient view in the matter of corruption (committed by the respondent) in a disciplined force

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside.

Respondent was unable to demonstrate from the record that he had made any grievance as to his confessional statement being made under duress and pressure

Award of major penalty of removal from service against the respondent was restored.

Service Tribunal set aside the order of removal of respondent-civil servant and ordered de-novo inquiry in consideration of the fact that the witness who deposed against the respondent during inquiry was not examined in presence of the respondent

Legality

Merely raising a technical question that the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined may alone not be sufficient to dispel the effect of a confession made by him before the inquiry officer

Service Tribunal had misdirected itself by taking a too lenient view in the matter of corruption (committed by the respondent) in a disciplined force

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside.

Respondent-employee at the relevant time was eligible to avail leave with full pay for upto 387 days and extraordinary leave up to five years, but without extension of leave he could not stay away from his duty even for a day let alone weeks and months

Respondent went abroad for higher education and then his mother allegedly fell ill for which the respondent required extension in his extraordinary leave

Questions whether respondent's mother was suffering from a disease which was incapable of being treated in the country and if he was alone in the family to attend to his mother had not been answered

Respondent, in the circumstances, could not go unpunished, but at the same time his unblemished service of more than 21 years could not be allowed to go unrequited

Supreme Court converted respondent's removal from service into compulsory retirement, and observed that it had become routine for high ranking officers to go abroad on different pretexts and stay there for good without knowing that their country, which had spent a great deal on them while holding examination for Civil Superior Service and providing them training in the academies, needed their undivided and whole hearted service more than any other entity; and that such a casual and even callous attitude towards the civil service could not be ignored lightly.

Under the doctrine of pleasure, all the posts of the Advocate-General Office were held at the pleasure of the Government and were terminable at its will

Appointments of the Additional and Assistant Advocate- General were made by the Chief Minister at his option and pleasure in terms of Item 16 of Part-I of Seventh Schedule of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Furthermore sub-para (4) of para 1.18 of Law Department Manual, 1938 explicitly mandated that an Additional or Assistant Advocate-General shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor/Chief Minister and may liable to be removed from the office at any time without notice

By nature of his appointment and functions, an Assistant Advocate-General had no vested right to force continuation of his appointment against the wishes of the Government, particularly, when he no longer inspired confidence of the Government

Appointment letter of the petitioner, in the present case, vividly reflected that his appointment as Assistant Advocate-General was made especially in the "public interest", therefore, if due to his long absence from duty, such service was dispensed with by the competent authority, the same would also be considered to be done in the public interest

Since the petitioner had no vested right to post of Assistant Advocate-General, there was no need to issue any notice to him by the competent authority before his services were dispensed with vide the impugned order

Even then petitioner was given personal hearing at the office of Advocate General, but after that he again remained absent from office

When the pay of the petitioner was stopped and he moved various applications for medical leave, he was asked to attend the Office of the Advocate-General, and was given different options which the petitioner promised to consider but despite that he did not attend his office till date and remained absent

In such circumstances, the petitioner could not say that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing

Long and continuous absence of petitioner from duty was to be treated as gross misconduct due to which he had been rightly removed from service

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Under the doctrine of pleasure, all the posts of the Advocate-General Office were held at the pleasure of the Government and were terminable at its will

Appointments of the Additional and Assistant Advocate- General were made by the Chief Minister at his option and pleasure in terms of Item 16 of Part-I of Seventh Schedule of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Furthermore sub-para (4) of para 1.18 of Law Department Manual, 1938 explicitly mandated that an Additional or Assistant Advocate-General shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor/Chief Minister and may liable to be removed from the office at any time without notice

By nature of his appointment and functions, an Assistant Advocate-General had no vested right to force continuation of his appointment against the wishes of the Government, particularly, when he no longer inspired confidence of the Government

Appointment letter of the petitioner, in the present case, vividly reflected that his appointment as Assistant Advocate-General was made especially in the "public interest", therefore, if due to his long absence from duty, such service was dispensed with by the competent authority, the same would also be considered to be done in the public interest

Since the petitioner had no vested right to post of Assistant Advocate-General, there was no need to issue any notice to him by the competent authority before his services were dispensed with vide the impugned order

Even then petitioner was given personal hearing at the office of Advocate General, but after that he again remained absent from office

When the pay of the petitioner was stopped and he moved various applications for medical leave, he was asked to attend the Office of the Advocate-General, and was given different options which the petitioner promised to consider but despite that he did not attend his office till date and remained absent

In such circumstances, the petitioner could not say that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing

Long and continuous absence of petitioner from duty was to be treated as gross misconduct due to which he had been rightly removed from service

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner-employee had contested local bodies election for union council and he was elected against the seat of General Member of the Ward

Show cause notice was served upon the petitioner

Employee had committed misconduct in the present case

Competent authority after considering defense plea and providing personal hearing to the employee imposed penalty of removal from service upon him

Employee had no merit in the constitutional petition which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent-employee at the relevant time was eligible to avail leave with full pay for upto 387 days and extraordinary leave up to five years, but without extension of leave he could not stay away from his duty even for a day let alone weeks and months

Respondent went abroad for higher education and then his mother allegedly fell ill for which the respondent required extension in his extraordinary leave

Questions whether respondent's mother was suffering from a disease which was incapable of being treated in the country and if he was alone in the family to attend to his mother had not been answered

Respondent, in the circumstances, could not go unpunished, but at the same time his unblemished service of more than 21 years could not be allowed to go unrequited

Supreme Court converted respondent's removal from service into compulsory retirement, and observed that it had become routine for high ranking officers to go abroad on different pretexts and stay there for good without knowing that their country, which had spent a great deal on them while holding examination for Civil Superior Service and providing them training in the academies, needed their undivided and whole hearted service more than any other entity; and that such a casual and even callous attitude towards the civil service could not be ignored lightly.

Employee was removed from service and his appeal was also declined by the Authority-Employee-respondent was reinstated into service on the directions of Chief Minister

Validity

Departmental appeal of employee was dismissed by the competent authority

Employee did not avail remedy before Service Tribunal

Penal order passed by the authority had attained finality

No remedy of review was available before the competent authority

No power of revision was available with the Chief Minister under Balochistan Province Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 or Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012

Governor (competent authority) could exercise such powers under S.9 of Balochistan Province Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 or Chief Minister under S.17 of Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011

No such power was exercised, rather on the recommendation of Provincial Minister a process was initiated and an order was passed to undo the act done within the ambit of a special law

Employee could not approach any member of National Assembly or Provincial Assembly directly or indirectly to intervene on his behalf in the matter

Employee being guilty of misconduct, order passed by the Chief Minister was in contravention of law

Directions of Chief Minister were implemented without raising any question by the officers concerned

Compliance of any illegal and arbitrary order was neither binding on the subordinate forum nor valid in the eye of law

Chief Minister had misused his powers

Impugned order of reinstatement of employee was declared to be illegal and set aside

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

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.

Allegations against the petitioner was that he provided fake e-mail address of external examiners and manipulated the thesis evaluation

Preliminary inquiry

Evidentiary value

Confession of employee during preliminary inquiry proceedings

Contention of petitioner employee was that he had no connection with the alleged allegations

Validity

Petitioner employee had no role in the provision of list of external examiners and their e-mail addresses

Employee could not be held responsible for the act which had been done by the employees of the University

Inquiry Officer was not appointed to proceed against the petitioner but against the employees of the University

Petitioner employee had been deprived of his right to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the other side

Inquiry could not be held in an arbitrary manner and principles of natural justice must be followed

Fair chance of cross-examination and production of evidence in rebuttal must be provided

If mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court, tribunal or authority was not fulfilled then the entire proceedings which followed would become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction

Any order passed in continuation of such proceedings in appeal or revision would equally suffer from illegality and would be without jurisdiction

Confessional statement of employee recorded in preliminary inquiry was not confronted to him during regular inquiry

Said statement would be invalid to impose penalty, in circumstances

Preliminary inquiry could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of final adjudication nor any evidence recorded in such inquiry could be treated as substantive piece of evidence during regular inquiry

Impugned order passed by the university authorities was set aside

Authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service from the date he was terminated; he would not be entitled to any monetary back benefits as termination period had to be considered as leave without pay

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner-employee had failed to negate the facts by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence she was rightly terminated from service on proving allegations against her

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that penalty of removal from service could not be awarded under R.6 of Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007

Validity

Penalty of removal from service did not figure in R.6 of Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007

Penalty of deduction of emergency allowance or deduction of 1/5th salary could have been imposed on the employee and nothing more

Petitioner was a regular employee and penalty of termination of contract could not be imposed

Department could proceed against the employee under S.7 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 as allegation of inefficiency had been raised against him

Department was not invested with the power to impose penalty of removal from service against the employee

Impugned order passed by the department was not sustainable which was set aside

Employee was ordered to be reinstated in service

Intervening period to be treated as leave of kind due

Employee was directed to apply to the department for back benefits which should be determined after ascertaining as to employee remained gainfully employed during the interregnum period

Department would be at liberty to either impose the penalty upon the employee as prescribed under R.6 of Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007 or proceed under S.7 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiff, employee of Air Force, claimed reinstatement in service in addition to damages for humiliation lowering of prestige, defamation, or mental agony caused to him by the departmental functionary

Requirements

Fact could only be proved by direct evidence which required examination of the person who claimed to have heard or seen a thing

Plaintiff continued working with and under the department (Air Force) and made no complaint

If any functionary of the department was acting in excess of his lawful authority and in violation of law and the constitutional mandate plaintiff should have complained to the Higher authorities

Compliance of any illegal and arbitrary order was neither binding on the subordinate nor valid in the eye of law

Plaintiff, in order to prove damages for humiliation/defamation was bound not only to plead each head of the account of damages but also prove the same

Proof of damages did not mean repeating of humiliation/defamation or mental agony

Plaintiff was required to establish damages by supportive evidence which would include those whom the plaintiff became lower in prestige and honour and medical officer under whom he remained under treatment for alleged mental suffering and agony

Issuance of an explanation or show-cause notice was meant to put the addressee on a notice to explain or show cause with regard to allegation or position

Employer had right to get things explained while an employee was bound to clear his position

Issuance of show-cause notice could not be held illegal as same otherwise served the very first object of fair trial

Employee had to establish mala fide if he intended to challenge legality and competence of issue cause or explanation

Mala fide could not be proved by some direct evidence but it could only be proved by circumstances showing that action challenged as mala fide was initiated out of personal motive

No authority or Court was permitted to do what was not permitted by law or settled procedure solely applying its own vision/wisdom

Issuance of show-cause notice to the plaintiff was not mala fide or illegal

Removal of plaintiff-employee from his service was sufficient to give him a cause of action to seek legal remedy but before the proper forum

Whims or wishes of a person would not give jurisdiction to a forum or Authority but it should be dictate of law which an aggrieved had to follow while pursuing his legal remedies

If order or action of an Authority with regard to Armed Forces was established either coram non judice, mala fide or without jurisdiction then same could be challenged by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court only in exception to bar provided by Art.212 of the Constitution

Plaintiff did not claim an exception to his status as civil servant therefore filing of present suit involving a prayer for reinstatement was not maintainable

Suit in the present form was not maintainable

Consequential relief of damages was dependent upon determination of status of removal as illegal and mala fide which could not be decided in the present case

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee was confined in jail in criminal case for the entire period during which disciplinary proceedings were initiated/ pending against him

Absence of employee was neither deliberate nor willful

Circumstances were beyond the control of employee and non-reply of explanation or show cause notice was not due to his negligent conduct of employee

Nothing was on record that explanation or show-cause notice issued against the employee through newspaper was provided in prison to the under trial prisoners at relevant time

No show cause notice was served upon the employee in circumstances

Employee was not heard during departmental proceedings

Principles of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard had been violated in the case

Employee was not heard before passing adverse order of inflicting major penalty of removal from service

Impugned orders were not sustainable in circumstances

Major penalty of removal from service was converted into withholding of annual increments for five years by the High Court

Employee was reinstated into service

Intervening period from the date of removal from service till the employee resumed his duty was directed to be considered towards his extraordinary leave without pay

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Employee was appointed as Chairman Mirpur Development Authority on contract basis for three years but was removed from office before expiry of period mentioned in the terms and conditions of order

High Court declared the employee to be entitled for salary, privileges and other benefits as Chairman Development Authority for the remaining period of his contract

Validity

Appointing Authority had been vested with the powers to remove the Chairman Development Authority before the specified period

Employee had accepted the appointment keeping in mind the basic statutory provisions

Notification of terms and conditions would have to be interpreted while keeping in mind the domain and scope of basic statutory provisions under which the Appointing Authority was vested with the powers of appointment

If any terms and conditions was violative to the basic statutory provision, same be deemed to be ineffective and invalid to the extent of inconsistency with the statutory provision

Employee had not succeeded in making out any legal ground for granting the prayed relief under extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction

Employee could hold office only during pleasure of Government

Government was empowered to remove the Chairman Development Authority at any time

Employee had accepted terms and conditions with regard to his removal at any time

Appointment of employee was at the pleasure of Government

Government while removing the employee from office had not violated any provision of law

Order of removal, in the present case, was in accordance with the conditions pre-settled among the parties

When it was established from the record that the party would take a specific stand in defence which was already known and clear then principle of audi alteram partem would not attract

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was recalled and writ petition was dismissed

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Proper disciplinary proceedings had been conducted and after fulfilling all the codal formalities the allegations against the accused and co-accused had been fully proved

As per the statement recorded during the inquiry proceeding all the teachers almost unanimously stated that they gave different amounts to co-accused who further delivered the bribe money to accused for issuing the transfer letters which were found to be bogus

In the presence of such substantial evidence against the accused and co-accused the order for their removal from service was justified

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Proper disciplinary proceedings had been conducted and after fulfilling all the codal formalities the allegations against the accused and co-accused had been fully proved

As per the statement recorded during the inquiry proceeding all the teachers almost unanimously stated that they gave different amounts to co-accused who further delivered the bribe money to accused for issuing the transfer letters which were found to be bogus

In the presence of such substantial evidence against the accused and co-accused the order for their removal from service was justified

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Employee was proceeded under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and penalty of removal from service was awarded

Grievance petition filed by the employee was allowed and he was reinstated with back benefits

Validity

Employee of Statutory body (Multan Development Authority) would fall under S.2 (h) (i) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and could be proceeded under the Act

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were without jurisdiction which were set aside

Employee could file departmental appeal for redressal of his grievance if so desired

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.