Compulsory retirement

Petitioner / civil servant assailed dismissal of his appeal by Service Tribunal, whereby order of his compulsory retirement from service was maintained

Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that he used to be on outdoor duty

Validity

Plea was in itself an admission on the part of petitioner / civil servant of coming late without intimation, particularly in view of the fact that attendance sheet was placed on record which revealed that whenever he was on outdoor duty it was marked as "Out Working"

In the order in question it had been discussed as to how he put his attendance in bio-metric record though he was not on duty

Supreme Court declined to interfere in finding of Service Tribunal that documentary evidence was such that there was no need to hold an inquiry under the relevant law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000

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

Petitioner / civil servant assailed dismissal of his appeal by Service Tribunal, whereby order of his compulsory retirement from service was maintained

Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that he used to be on outdoor duty

Validity

Plea was in itself an admission on the part of petitioner / civil servant of coming late without intimation, particularly in view of the fact that attendance sheet was placed on record which revealed that whenever he was on outdoor duty it was marked as "Out Working"

In the order in question it had been discussed as to how he put his attendance in bio-metric record though he was not on duty

Supreme Court declined to interfere in finding of Service Tribunal that documentary evidence was such that there was no need to hold an inquiry under the relevant law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000

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

Object of S.12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is to develop efficiency and discipline and achieve good governance in civil service

Civil servant who has served a considerable length of 20 years with a minimum level of efficiency, loses legitimate expectancy to perform better in future and only wants to stay with the sort of performance, which may be in his / her interest but certainly not in the interest of public

Basic difference between retirement under S. 12(i) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, is that retirement in terms of former provision is not a punishment and civil servant gets all service benefits without any stigma, whereas compulsory retirement under the latter provision is a punishment

Order under S. 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is not interfered with as satisfaction of competent authority regarding efficiency and performance of an employee is not to be substituted by Court or Tribunal with its own opinion on the basis of analysis of record

In the present case first condition of completion of twenty years' service was not satisfied, thus, impugned retirement Notification could not have been issued

Justiciability of S. 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, without satisfying requirement mentioned therein were not proper to deprive a person from his / her legitimate right of service as source of earning

High Court reinstated the civil servant into service by setting aside show cause notice and retirement notification

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

During regular inquiry it is obligatory for the inquiry officer to allow an even-handed and fair opportunity to the accused to place his defence and if any witness is examined against him, then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses

When the statement of a witness is not subjected to cross-examination, its evidentiary value cannot be equated

It is an onerous duty of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee to explore every avenue so that the inquiry may be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and should avoid razing and annihilating the principle of natural justice which may ensue in the miscarriage of justice

Not providing an ample opportunity of defence and depriving the accused officer from his right of cross-examining departmental representative who led evidence and produced documents against the accused is also against the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution

In the present case various witnesses were associated in the enquiry and their statements were also recorded but neither any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner (Accountant in police force) to conduct cross-examination, nor was it mentioned that an opportunity of cross-examination was afforded, but was declined by the petitioner

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and it was directed that the department shall conduct de novo inquiry; that in the course of de novo inquiry, ample opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner; that petitioner shall be reinstated in service subject to the refund of dues within a period of one month as received by him from the department; that the de novo inquiry shall be concluded within a period of two months and the payment of back benefits, if any, shall also be subject to the final outcome of the inquiry.

Division Bench of High Court while proceeding in appeal observed that the appellant, a Qazi, had acted in aid of accomplishing voracious whims of parties to plunder the property of public exchequer, as such, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant wherein almost thirty cases were noted to have been mishandled on judicial side by the appellant

Enquiry officer concluded that the appellant was careless, had decided cases in haste without adhering to the prevailing law, which proved negligence, misconduct and illegality on his part

Major penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the appellant vide impugned notification

Validity

Appellant had failed to justify the circumstances which had compelled him to decide suit(s) hastily, without recording evidence and giving reasons in deciding the cases

Conduct of the appellant besides being perfunctory was also tainted with mala fide and showed extraneous consideration on his part

Appellant had failed to justifiably rebut the allegation leveled against him rather had pleaded the same as mistake

Such could not be considered a valid excuse by a judicial officer

When ignorance of law is considered as no excuse in the matter of a layman, how can it be taken as a valid ground in the matter of a judicial officer, who was vested with the power to exercise the original jurisdiction of Qazi Court and decide the fate of the cases amongst the general public

Appeal was dismissed.

Although compulsory retirement has been prescribed in the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, as a major penalty yet it differs from dismissal and removal from service as it does not stipulate penal consequences, inasmuch as, a person retired compulsorily is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit.

Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal had rightly noted that reply of the petitioner-Judge to the show cause notices showed that he had accepted the allegation of leading a stylish life which was beyond his lawful means; that on admission, he was required to discharge the burden which he took upon his shoulders but he did not produce any iota of evidence to that effect; that had he not taken the plea, which he took, then of course burden would have been on the Establishment to substantiate its charge but once the petitioner admitted that he was a Grade-21 Officer with a handsome salary, and that his wife was a specialist doctor having served abroad for a long time and that he had sufficient means of livelihood from his ancestral property, then, upon taking such plea, he was bound to produce some material in support of his plea, which he did not do

No evidence of any nature whatsoever was placed on record to show the earnings of petitioner's wife as a doctor or the earnings of the petitioner from his alleged ancestral property

Neither during the course of hearing of present petition nor before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed any material to substantiate his plea that he possessed the means to live a lifestyle beyond his known means as alleged in the show cause notices

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

Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal had rightly noted that reply of the petitioner-Judge to the show cause notices showed that he had accepted the allegation of leading a stylish life which was beyond his lawful means; that on admission, he was required to discharge the burden which he took upon his shoulders but he did not produce any iota of evidence to that effect; that had he not taken the plea, which he took, then of course burden would have been on the Establishment to substantiate its charge but once the petitioner admitted that he was a Grade-21 Officer with a handsome salary, and that his wife was a specialist doctor having served abroad for a long time and that he had sufficient means of livelihood from his ancestral property, then, upon taking such plea, he was bound to produce some material in support of his plea, which he did not do

No evidence of any nature whatsoever was placed on record to show the earnings of petitioner's wife as a doctor or the earnings of the petitioner from his alleged ancestral property

Neither during the course of hearing of present petition nor before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed any material to substantiate his plea that he possessed the means to live a lifestyle beyond his known means as alleged in the show cause notices

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

Allegation against the employee (cash-officer) of a Province owned Bank was of embezzlement of funds, gross negligence in duties, etc.

Contention of the petitioner-cash officer was that he had informed the concerned department regarding the matter and he had deposited the disputed amount from his own pocket

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner while joining inquiry proceedings did not object to the inquiry officer that inquiry was incomplete or it was not satisfactory

Petitioner, in his reply to show-cause notice, had admitted that he had not been able to execute his responsibilities in accordance with Bank SOPs

Although, from said admission of the petitioner, there was no need of conducting regular inquiry yet the Bank adopted proper procedure and provided him an opportunity of personal hearing

Petitioner did everything intentionally, keeningly and willingly because his 26 years job career was long enough to provide knowledge of law and rules of maintenance of public fund of which he was made custodian

Bank after analyzing the material on record had even found the contention/plea of the petitioner as gross misconduct resulting in a great loss to the reputation of Bank

Petitioner was afforded full opportunity of personal hearing as well as right of defence but he could not counter the charges/allegations through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence, which otherwise had been proved

Petitioner could not shake the credibility of inquiry

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Office order imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent and treated his unauthorised absence from duty as extraordinary leave without pay

Interpretation

Plea on behalf of respondent that since his unauthorised absence from duty was treated as extraordinary leave without pay, therefore, the major penalty of compulsory retirement could not be sustained

Held, that perusal of the office order reflected that the competent authority in the first paragraph of office order had expressed its mind explicitly on the unauthorized absence of the respondent by imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect

So far as the second portion of the office order treating absence of respondent as extraordinary leave without pay was concerned, since the penalty imposed by the competent authority was of compulsory retirement which followed the payment of salaries and other dues till the date of imposing such penalty, therefore, it was necessary to give finding as to how such absence was to be treated

Office order categorically provided for consequences of unauthorised absence in the form of compulsory retirement

Appeal was allowed.

Service Tribunal reinstated employee in service with option to the department to conduct de novo inquiry within a specific period

Department having failed to complete de novo inquiry within a period provided by the Service Tribunal

Non-compliance of judgment of Service Tribunal

Effect

Petitioner-employee was reinstated in service by the Service Tribunal and Department was directed to conduct de novo inquiry within a period of ninety days after receipt of judgment

Employee was reinstated in service but de novo inquiry was not completed within a period provided by the Service Tribunal

Contention of petitioner was that no inquiry proceedings could be conducted after expiry of period provided by the Service Tribunal

Validity

Compliance of order of Court in letter and spirit was not only the responsibility of general public but government departments too were required to honour the verdict of the Courts and Tribunals

Sufficient time had been granted to the Department to conduct de novo inquiry but they had adopted dilatory tactics to delay the implementation of judgment of Service Tribunal

Impugned order for de novo inquiry had been passed after expiry of period for completion of inquiry proceedings provided by the Service Tribunal

Inquiry proceedings had become void being violative of judgment of Service Tribunal in circumstances

Departmental action against a civil servant was an executive discretion of the authority and High Court in order to protect the administration of justice could examine and judicially review the said discretion

Acts done by the authority in violation of judgment of Service Tribunal could not be given cover under Art. 212 of the Constitution

Act of non-compliance with the orders of the Court or Tribunal by itself was an illegal act and High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could review such act of the Executive

Inquiry conducted by the department after expiry of period provided by the Service Tribunal was illegal, contumacious and against rule of law

Departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner were declared null and void, in circumstances

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had alternate remedy of filing departmental appeal and in case of failure to succeed in the same by approaching Service Tribunal

Absence of adequate and efficacious remedy was condition precedent for issuing a writ

Petitioner might avail alternate remedy before competent forum in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Object of S. 13 of the Sindh Civil Servant Act, 1973 is to improve the efficiency and discipline in the Civil Service.

Law required the Authority to consider the entire service record of employee while assessing whether he/she could be compulsory retired

Case of a judicial officer was required to be examined treating him/her to be differently than other civil servants

Honesty and integrity of judicial officer was expected to be beyond doubt

Nature of judicial service was such that it could not afford to suffer continuance in service of a persons with doubtful integrity or the one who had lost his/her utility in order to keep the stream of justice unpolluted

Judge could not be stamped with the label of doubtful integrity in absence of tangible material

General impression of the Judge as a corrupt Judge in the mind of general public was alone sufficient for his/her compulsory retirement by the Authority

Officer remained an average officer throughout her service career and never improved

Judicial officer did not enjoy good reputation in the eyes of general public as well as her superiors

Compulsory retirement was a major penalty but differed from dismissal and removal from service as it did not involve penal consequences

Person compulsorily retired was entitled to pension and other retirement benefits proportionate to the period of service standing to his/her credit

Officer had already attained the age of superannuation

No chance to make allegation of non-application of judicial mind and mala fides in making the decision against the officer existed

Sufficient material was available to connect the officer with the commission of misconduct during her service

Inquiry Officer as well as Authorized Officer had appreciated the evidence in its true perspective

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Inquiry Officer had pre-judged the issue against the appellant before participating in the meeting of Administration Committee

Inquiry Officer who had already formed an opinion against the appellant could not be said that he sat in the meeting with an unbiased mind

Doctrine of natural justice should be complied with

Decision-maker or authority should not be biased or prejudiced

Fair trial required that the rights of a person be determined by an independent and impartial court/tribunal/authority

No one should adjudicate a matter in which he had formed an opinion adversely to the party

Inquiry Officer could not participate in the meeting of Administration Committee of High Court in which the case of appellant was considered

Presence of Inquiry Officer in the said meeting was not a mere irregularity but was an illegality which had vitiated the whole proceedings

Impugned notification was set aside and Registrar of the High Court was directed to place the matter before the Authority (Administration Committee) for a fresh decision

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Order of removal from service issued was served by the said officer and order of acceptance of departmental appeal conveyed to the employee was again served through the same officer

Validity

Nothing was on record that departmental proceedings/penalty was approved by the Authority

Whole proceedings in the present case were initiated and authorized by Manager Discipline and never authorized by the competent authority

Even if there was any delegation of powers then Executive Vice-President (HR) being himself as delegatee could not further delegate his powers to the Manager Discipline Management

Where through a law or notification powers were delegated to an authority and that law or notification had not given any power to the authority for further delegation of said power then any such further delegation would not vest the delegatee such powers

Department had violated the concept of authority and authorized officer

Where the department itself constituted and notified the authority then all the departmental actions should have been initiated under the order of Authority

Order of penalty also required the approval of the Authority

Proceedings initiated against the employee and concluded having not been authorized by the Authority, had no legal status and were declared illegal and without lawful authority by the High Court

Impugned order of compulsory retirement was set aside and department was allowed to initiate fresh departmental inquiry, if so advised

Employee was directed to be reinstated and his back benefit's any should be decided after the out-come of such inquiry

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Saleemullah Khan Ranazai and Anwarul Haq for Petitioner.

No procedure as provided under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 in the light of law and procedure was followed nor any regular inquiry was conducted against the worker

Worker was not issued any charge-sheet to defend himself as per the statement of witness of employee

No damage was caused to the employer due to the alleged act of misconduct and negligence on the part of worker

Labour Court rightly allowed the grievance petition

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Employee, who was compulsory retired from service; was reinstated in service by the Labour Court on filing grievance petition by the employee granting 50% back benefits for the period he remained out of job due to his compulsory retirement

Employee, claimed full back benefits contending that during period of his compulsory retirement he remained out of job and did not perform any gainful job, therefore, was entitled to fell back benefits

Labour Court, did not give any reason for grant of 50% back benefits

Impugned judgment was set aside to that extent

Employee was allowed full back benefits for the period he remained out of job due to order for his compulsory retirement, till his reinstatement in service.

Grievance petition filed by the employee against order of his compulsory retirement having been dismissed by the Labour Court, employee filed appeal before Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed

Employee assailed said order by filing constitutional petition, which was allowed by High Court

Employers through present review petition had assailed the order passed by Single Judge of High Court in the Constitutional petition

Employers had contended that their counsel made conceding statement before the High Court without instructions of an Officer Grade 17, without which conceding statement carried no weight in the eyes of law

Validity

High Court observed that Law Officers should not make conceding statement in the court, unless they had duly been instructed in writing by the competent authority; and an officer not below the rank of Grade-17 should be present in the court to verify and reiterate such instructions

Presence of the concerned Officer must be recorded in the order of the court; and written instructions should be made a part of the record of the court

If an order was passed in ignorance of judgment of the Supreme Court, which was binding under Art.189 of the Constitution, same was liable to be reviewed

Impugned order was reviewed, and judgment of Single Judge was set aside, in circumstances.

Grievance petition filed by the petitioner employee against dismissal order passed by the respondent Bank was allowed by Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated into service with all back benefits

Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Labour Court and converted penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement

Validity

No financial loss was caused to the respondent Bank

Petitioner employee was never charged for misconduct throughout his service prior to present incident

Penalty of compulsory retirement could not be awarded under Standing Order 12(3) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Impugned penalty was even otherwise harsh and same was not sustainable in the eye of law

Petitioner employee had been deprived from all the retirement benefits

No adverse action could be taken which was not prescribed by law/rules/regulations

Adverse action offending right to retirement benefits of petitioner employee was also violative of Art.9 of the Constitution

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

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

No estoppel existed against law

Petitioner employee was entitled to be treated in accordance with law

Petitioner employee had right to be dealt with fairly and justly

Mere acceptance of legal dues by an employee would not amount to waiver to estop him from challenging the order passed against the employee

Legal remedy could not be denied to the petitioner employee if charge of misconduct had not been established

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh through speaking order within a specified period

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Petitioner was compulsory retired from service in disciplinary proceedings but he was reinstated in service by converting the same into stoppage of one increment for two years by the Service Tribunal

Petitioner was directed to pay interest on the amount which he received due to retirement

Validity

Petitioner had returned the entire amount which he received

Reinstatement of government servant retired under S.12(ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 would be conditional to return of pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension drawn by him which had to be treated as advance to him and would be recoverable along with interest at the rate applicable at the time of reinstatement

Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal did not reveal any such recovery of interest which had excluded the petitioner for the purposes of recovery of interest

Judgment of Service Tribunal would be operated prospectively and would be applied to the civil servant on the date when it was announced

No payment of interest was mentioned in the judgment of Service Tribunal and the same could not be recovered from the petitioner

Nothing was on record that at the time of receiving amount petitioner committed that he would pay it back with interest at the event of his reinstatement in service

Authorities were restrained from recovering the amount of interest from the petitioner as he had paid back the entire received amount

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Reinstatement of government servant retired under S.12(ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 would be conditional to return of pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension drawn by him which had to be treated as advance to him and would be recoverable along with interest at the rate applicable at the time of reinstatement

Government should not sustain any loss for any payment made on account of inflation of money which was subsequently found to have made unnecessary

Such event might arise either when appeal against compulsory retirement was allowed by the departmental authority or by the Service Tribunal

Order permitting reinstatement would have to be followed while ascertaining as to whether any interest was specifically mentioned as recoverable from such employee

Such situation might also arise when government servant retired before its superannuation was subsequently reinstated in service

Government servant would not be able to claim interest on the delayed payment of his post retirement benefit as said amount was to be paid at the time when it was found payable.

Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner-employee and he was compulsory retired on the allegations of financial irregularities

Contention of petitioner-employee was that compulsory retirement order was not passed by the competent authority

Validity

Department was not bound to impose the penalty as recommended by the Inquiry Officer but in case of any deviation or decision to impose any penalty other than recommended, Department was bound to inform the employee in the show cause notice with the reasons of such deviation

Maximum punishment could be inflicted by the authority provided under the law which could not be said to be illegal

Competent authority could pass such order on the report and recommendation of inquiry officer as it might deem proper

Competent authority was not bound to follow the report of inquiry officer

Compulsory retirement order could not be defended on the ground that Chairman/CEO (Competent authority) of the corporation was present in the meeting and there was no need to sign the same by him

Serious allegations were levelled and proved in the inquiry and exact figure of loss had been mentioned in the show cause notice

Inquiry report could not be wiped out or wrecked due to the reason alone that retirement order was not signed by the competent authority

Department should be afforded an opportunity to make another study of the case and pass appropriate order

Impugned order was set aside, however, same would not preclude and impede the authority from passing an appropriate order afresh after consideration of inquiry report

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Employee who remained absent from the duty for 10 days, was compulsorily retired from service without adopting due process of law, without affording an opportunity of hearing and without concluding an inquiry

Inquiry into the allegation was mandatory under the provisions of Ss.3 & 5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 and it was mandatory for competent Authority to constitute an inquiry committee; and if after the inquiry and due process of law, the allegation was proved and the competent Authority was satisfied that allegation was proved, civil servant could be proceeded under S.3(2) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001

Under proviso to subsection (2) of S.3 of the said Act, 2001, no opportunity would be given to person where the competent Authority was satisfied that in the interest of security of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan or any part thereof, it was not expedient to give such opportunity

Said exception given in the proviso, could not be used arbitrarily

Reason for not providing such opportunity must be borne out from the record

Person could not be removed from service merely on the ground of allegation without proving the same

Hearing was a time tested right based at Maxim "audi alteram partem i.e., nobody could be punished without providing him an opportunity of hearing"

In the present case, no inquiry was conducted against the employee, he was condemned unheard and impugned order had been passed against him in arbitrary manner, without due process of law which was set aside and the employee was restored to service, in circumstances.

Appellant who was compulsorily retired from service on allegation of misconduct, had raised legal question that list of allegations and show-cause notice had not been served by the authority whereas under the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, it was mandatory that list of allegations and show-cause notice must be served upon accused by the authority; and any departure from the said statutory provision would vitiate the whole proceedings

Under provisions of S.5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee would have to communicate to the accused the charge and the statement of allegations specified in the order of inquiry passed by the competent authority

In the present case, communication of statement of allegation by the Inquiry Officer was in accordance with provisions of law

Communication of the statement of allegations by the Authority was not the requirement of law

Appellant himself had pleaded that after submission of the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer, the authority had also served upon him the show-cause notice and provided the opportunity of hearing

No departure was made in the proceedings from the mandatory statutory provisions, in circumstances.

Judicial Officer (accused/appellant) was alleged to have received a sum of money in his bank account from the complainant for purposes of selling land to the complainant

Judicial Officer allegedly only transferred half of the agreed land in the name of the complainant

Inquiry conducted by departmental authority found Judicial Officer guilty of charges of misconduct and corruption and orders were given for his compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect

Appeal against order of departmental authority was dismissed by High Court

Contentions of Judicial Officer were that in order to facilitate the complainant, he arranged with his brother to purchase some property for the complainant and in this connection he received money in his account, as his brother did not have a bank account of his own at that time; that money received from the complainant was an 'Amanat' which was transferred to the vendors of the property within a few days, therefore, neither any permission from concerned authority was needed nor it was required to be declared in the statement of assets; that he had only acted in good faith to facilitate the complainant and was not involved in any manner with the transaction except in the capacity of a go-between the complainant and his brother, and that he had always declared all transactions in his bank account related to purchase of property and other assets

Validity

Prima facie Judicial Officer, in connivance with his brothers and nephews, facilitated the complainant in order to defraud him

In view of principles of accountancy even if some money, received as 'Amanat' or on trust, was lying in the bank account on the date of declaration of assets, same should be declared as an asset and on the liability side it had to be declared in the name of the person on whose behalf such 'Amanat' or money on trust had been received

Government servants had to declare all deposits credited to their bank account

Bare reading of R.11 of West Pakistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966, made it clear that when a government servant intended to transact any purchase or sale or make disposal by any other means, of movable or immovable property exceeding value of Rs.25,000, with any person, he should apply for permission to transact such deal and once the money for such transaction was reflected in the bank account, he was required to seek permission, even though the amount given might be on behalf of any other person

Letter written by Judicial Officer to the complainant, which was available on record, completely shattered the Judicial Officer's claim that he was only acting as a facilitator without being entitled or liable to any gain or loss on transaction in question

Judicial Officer was dealing in sale and purchase of property like a property dealer

Regarding contention of Judicial Officer that money was received in his bank account as his brother did not have a bank account at that time, enquiry report into the matter proved that brother of Judicial Officer was maintaining a bank account at that time

Punishment of compulsory retirement commensurate with the offence committed

Supreme Court found the Judicial Officer guilty of misconduct for his role in the transaction which might be considered private, but was executed with mala fide intention to defraud the complainant, and that it was prima facie clear that Judicial Officer had been misusing his Judicial Office to help and assist his brothers and nephews in acquiring or disposing of properties, profits and gains of which were shared by him, which tantamounted to abuse of judicial powers

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the employee who was working in an Electric Supply Company as Meter Reader, after issuing him show-cause notice, but without holding any enquiry on ground of some irregularity

Employee after filing grievance petition remained in deep slumber for over four years, attempted to seek relief from the Labour Court

Grievance petition having been dismissed by the Labour Court, he filed appeal fourteen days after the expiry of stipulated period of filing of appeal, without plausible explanation for said delay

Employee did not appear to have come to the court with clean hands

Matter which at the maximum after rejection of the departmental appeal should have reached the appropriate forum within 120 days, but he had taken almost four years

Labour Court had properly appreciated the facts and rightly applied the law

Well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court could not be interfered with in appeal, which otherwise was time-barred.

Grievance of petitioner was that word "compulsory" mentioned in his retirement letter implied stigma which was reflected by major punishment, whereas he was simply retired

Validity

Compulsory retirement of petitioner by letter in question was not meant to impose punishment on him

Service of petitioner had been dispensed with along with all pensionary benefits as neither R.12(1) of Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, nor S.13 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, contemplated "compulsory retirement" as mode of retiring an officer from service, however such expression was used in the order in question

Use of word "compulsory" carried an adverse connotation, which could not be incorporated in terms of applicable legal provisions of R.12 of Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, nor could be justified in view of the fact that no notice of hearing of petitioner nor any inquiry into allegations mentioned in parawise comments had been held

Order of retirement of petitioner was illegal and without jurisdiction to the extent of imposing a major punishment on petitioner without due process under Pakistan Army Act, 1952

High Court directed the authorities to modify order of retirement of petitioner by deleting word "compulsory" therefrom

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Plea raised by civil servant was that his absence from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control as he had been involved in murder case

Validity

Service Tribunal while dealing with appeal, had power under S.5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to vary and modify order of departmental authority

Supreme Court while sitting in appeal over judgment of Service Tribunal could also exercise such power to meet the ends of justice

Civil servant, who had long unblemished service record of about 17 years and he, by force of circumstances (involvement in case in which he was later on acquitted), was prevented from performing his duty

Civil servant was absent from duty entailing some penalty under law and his removal from service was too harsh penalty for him

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and converted penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement

Appeal was allowed.

Penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed by the employers on employee after issuing him show-cause notice and holding enquiry on the basis of allegations of loose administration, negligence and concealment of facts

Employee was provided a fair chance to produce his further evidence, but he did not opt to do so; and certain admissions in his cross-examination, would show that employee in fact had admitted the charges levelled against him

Findings so recorded by the Labour Court on grievance petition, in circumstances, were not open to any exception and same were maintained

However, employee was employed in the bank for more than 26 years and nothing was on record to show anything except for charges in the present case

Employee was never censured for any act of his omission and commission during his entire career

Under sub-clause (i) of clause 3 of Standing Order 15 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a habitual negligence or neglect of work had been termed to be misconduct, but compulsory retirement was not provided as punishment under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968

Punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the employee, who had a long association with the employer bank for more than 26 years, appeared to be harsh

Awarding of punishment of reduction to a lower grade by one step, would adequately meet the ends of justice in view of the charges of which employee was proved guilty

Punishment from compulsory retirement, was converted into reduction into a lower grade by one step.

Respondent employee having admitted allegation levelled against him, authorized officer recommended that he be compulsorily retired from service and referred the matter to the Authority, who passed order of his compulsory retirement

Service Tribunal having accepted appeal, set aside order of compulsory retirement and reinstated employee in service

Leave to appeal filed against judgment of Service Tribunal was granted

No charge sheet was furnished to the employee and even the statement of allegation was not provided to him and the authorized officer also did not decide whether in the case inquiry was necessary or not and he without deciding as such suggested for major penalty of compulsory retirement

Competent Authority also did not consider that no chance for evidence was provided to the employee

Employee was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him, which was mandatory for Authority under R.8 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 to issue a notice and provide an opportunity of hearing to employee before imposing major penalty, but no such opportunity was provided to him

Competent Authority appeared to be not aware of the procedure of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 and he did not apply its mind and decided the matter without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules

Competent Authority could not be allowed to initiate fresh proceedings against the employee as he remained under trial for the last six years

Such permission could not be granted to the competent Authority on the ground that the Authorized Officer and the Authority were not aware of procedure prescribed for proceedings against the employee

Employee, in circumstances, could not be penalized for the lack of knowledge of Authority and Authorized Officer

Appeal was dismissed.

Civil servant assailed order of his compulsory retirement before Service Tribunal and sought reinstatement into service along with appeal, civil servant submitted application for temporary injunction seeking orders to restrain authorities from ejecting him from official residential quarter

Service Tribunal disposed of the main appeal with direction to the authorities to allow him pensionary benefits

Plea raised by civil servant was that instead of deciding appeal on merits, Service Tribunal disposed of the same on the ground that his grievance was only that his pensionary benefits were not being paid to him

Validity

No arguments were advanced by both the sides on merits, therefore, for such a reason, it was incumbent upon Service Tribunal to have either confined itself to the extent of disposal of application and at the same time appeal should have been decided on merits which was a due right of a litigant

Person who put in 17 years of service and had been waiting for result of his appeal for more than 6 years before Service Tribunal and was interested for grant of interim injunction against officials not to dispossess him from official residential quarter, such person besides requesting for reinstatement would not alone confine himself to the extent of payment of pensionary benefits alone which otherwise being his right were available to him under the rules

There was no necessity for passing such order nor the same was prayer in appeal or application

If civil servant was interested only to get pensionary benefits, he would have approached department at early stage who were bound to pay the same

It was right of civil servant that he should have been given hearing and after noting his contentions and law on the subject, as well as the precedent judgments, case should have been disposed of

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and remanded the case to Service Tribunal for disposal of the same in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed.

Civil servant was issued show cause notice on allegation of acquiring assets beyond known sources of income and he was compulsorily retired from service without holding formal inquiry

Validity

Allegations levelled against civil servant were of the nature which required production of evidence to prove the same

Competent authority, under S. 5 (1) and (4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, had to first decide whether to appoint Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee to scrutinize conduct of a person in government service or a person in corporation service who was alleged to have committed any acts or omissions specified in S. 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, or that there was no need of holding any inquiry as it was in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against accused to proceed without holding any inquiry

Civil servant had a right to know nature of documentary evidence in possession of competent authority on the basis of which competent authority decided not to hold inquiry anti did not provide opportunity to him, to put his defence

Supreme Court set aside order and judgment passed by authorities and Service Tribunal respectively

Appeal was allowed.

As such the same did not constitute ground sufficient for condonation of delay, as delay of each day was to be explained

Revision petition filed by petitioner was decided by competent authority on 24-12-2004, while appeal before Service Tribunal was filed on 29-11-2006, therefore, service appeal was barred by time

Service Tribunal considered evidence on merit as well as on point of limitation which was accordingly dismissed

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was based on proper appreciation of material available on record and no infirmity and illegality was shown to justify interference by Supreme Court

No substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Art.212(3) of the Constitution was involved

Leave to appeal was refused.

Civil servant assailed order of his compulsory retirement before Service Tribunal and sought reinstatement into service along with appeal, civil servant submitted application for temporary injunction seeking orders to restrain authorities from ejecting him from official residential quarter

Service Tribunal disposed of the main appeal with direction to the authorities to allow him pensionary benefits

Plea raised by civil servant was that instead of deciding appeal on merits, Service Tribunal disposed of the same on the ground that his grievance was only that his pensionary benefits were not being paid to him

Validity

No arguments were advanced by both the sides on merits, therefore, for such a reason, it was incumbent upon Service Tribunal to have either confined itself to the extent of disposal of application and at the same time appeal should have been decided on merits which was a due right of a litigant

Person who put in 17 years of service and had been waiting for result of his appeal for. more than 6 years before Service Tribunal and was interested for grant of interim injunction against officials not to dispossess him from official residential quarter, such person besides requesting for reinstatement would not alone confine himself to the extent of payment of pensionary benefits alone which otherwise being his right were available to him under the rules

There was no necessity for passing such order nor the same was prayer in appeal or application

If civil servant was interested only to get pensionary hone fits, he would have approached department at early stage who were bound to pay the same

It was right of civil servant that he should have been given hearing and after noting his contentions and law on the subject, as well as the precedent judgments case should have been disposed of

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and remanded the case to Service Tribunal for disposal of the same in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed.

Civil servant was issued show-cause notice on allegation of acquiring assets beyond known sources of income and he was compulsorily retired from service without holding formal inquiry

Validity

Allegations levelled against civil servant were of the nature which required production of evidence to prove the same

Competent authority, under S. 5 (1) and (4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, had to first decide whether to appoint Inquiry Officer or inquiry Committee to scrutinize conduct of a person in government service or a person in corporation service who was alleged to have committed any acts or omissions specified in S. 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, or that there was no need of holding any inquiry as it was in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against accused to proceed without holding any inquiry

Civil servant had a right to know nature of documentary evidence in possession of competent authority on the basis of which competent authority decided not to hold inquiry and did not provide opportunity to him, to put his defence

Supreme Court set aside order and judgment passed by authorities and Service Tribunal respectively

Appeal was allowed.

Inquiry officer recommended stoppage of two years' salary of petitioner but competent authority compulsorily retired him from service

Plea raised by petitioner was that competent authority did not follow recommendation of inquiry officer

Validity

In absence of any allegation against inquiry officer it could not be said that inquiry conducted by inquiry officer against petitioner required reconsideration

Conduct and report of inquiry officer was purely a question of fact which could not be entertained and decided in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Authorities were not under obligation to follow recommendation of inquiry officer and maximum punishment provided under law could be inflicted by competent authority which ,had been done by the authority

Inquiry had proved that petitioner was responsible for opening fake accounts and sanctioning of loan against such fake accounts and was found guilty of charge and embezzlement

Petitioner did not point out any illegality in proceedings of inquiry which culminated against him

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed against petitioner by authorities

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Show-cause notice was issued to petitioner for committing embezzlement, inquiry officer recommended stoppage of two years' salary but competent authority compulsorily retired petitioner from service

Plea raised by respondent-bank was that constitutional petition was not maintainable against privatized bank

Validity

Respondent-bank was neither corporate body setup, established or owned under management or control by government, therefore, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, was not applicable to respondent bank

After show cause notice, opportunity of hearing was provided and order against petitioner was passed by authorities

Respondent-bank was not covered by definition of `person' given under Art.199 of the Constitution as it was not a corporation under control of Federal or Provincial Government

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed against petitioner by respondent-bank

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by civil servant was that his absence from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control as he had been involved in murder case

Validity

Service Tribunal while dealing with appeal, had power under S.5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to vary and modify order of departmental authority

Supreme Court while sitting in appeal over judgment of Service Tribunal could also exercise such power to meet the ends of justice

Civil servant, who had long unblemished service record of about 17 years and he, by force of circumstances (involvement in case in which he was later on acquitted), was prevented from performing his duty

Civil servant was absent from duty entailing some penalty under law and his removal from service was too harsh penalty for him

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and converted penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement

Appeal was allowed.

Departmental authorities, in spite of" remand of the case by the Service Tribunal, dilated upon the merits of the case and formed its earlier opinion and became prejudiced towards the employee on the basis of other complaints and no opportunity in defence was provided to him

Department, in spite of reinstatement order, passed by high Court, did not allow the employee to join service which reflected that department had made up its mind to deprive the employee of his right

Departmental action on the statement containing 23 allegations which included additional allegations, was taken on malice and predetermined desire to get rid of the employee

Appeal of employee before the Service Tribunal having been abated High Court had the power to give directions to the effect that the employee may be reinstated in service however, in the present case, high Court wrongly observed that his intervening period may he treated as extraordinary leave without salary

No jurisdictional error, infirmity and illegality having been found in the impugned judgment, the same was maintained by the Supreme Court.

Record revealed that no charge-sheet was issued to the civil servant as required under S.3(2), Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000

Civil servant, thus was deprived of opportunity of showing cause by giving a defence reply to the charge-sheet and of defence at the first stage required under the law

Authority should have adopted the elementary principles of natural justice unless the same had been expressly excluded

Such proceedings, therefore, could not be sustained which had prejudiced the right of defence of the civil servant

Provisions of S.5, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 contemplated that in case of charge of misconduct as stipulated in S.3 of the said Ordinance, a full-fledged enquiry was to be conducted in order to give an opportunity to civil servant to clarify his position

Authority was not justified in refusing to grant the leave on EOL (leave without pay)

Civil servant had 26 years of service to his credit and as per Revised Leave Rules, 1980 he was entitled to EOL without pay for a maximum period of 5 years, if he had rendered more than 10 years of service

No justification, therefore, was available to the Authority for refusing EOL when the civil servant requested for extension of leave on medical grounds

Principles

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and allowed

Judgment of Service Tribunal, was set aside and civil servant was directed to be reinstated in service with all back-benefits, however, department would be at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry against the civil servant in accordance with law.

Civil servant was compulsorily retired from service on the allegation of getting average and below average Annual Confidential Reports

Order passed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal

Plea raised by civil servant was that reports in question were never communicated to him

Validity

Average remarks in Annual Confidential Reports were not communicated to civil servant hence he had no opportunity to meet the same

Annual Confidential Reports in question having been made ground for premature retirement of civil servant, therefore, same should have been communicated to him and finalized accordingly before any action could be taken against him under S.13 of Civil Servants Act, 1973

Average entry in Annual Confidential Report was not adverse unless disciplinary action was initiated on such ground and communicated to the civil servant

Order of compulsory retirement and judgment of Service Tribunal were set aside by Supreme Court and civil servant was reinstated in service with back benefits

Appeal was allowed.

Departmental authorities, in spite of remand of the case by the Service Tribunal, dilated upon the merits of the case and formed its earlier opinion and became prejudiced towards the employee on the basis of other complaints and no opportunity in defence was provided to him

Department, in spite of reinstatement order, passed by High Court, did not allow the employee to join service which reflected that department had made up its mind to deprive the employee of his right

Departmental action on the statement containing 23 allegations which included additional allegations, was taken on malice and predetermined desire to get rid of the employee

Appeal of employee before the Service Tribunal having been abated High Court had the power to give directions to the effect that the employee may be reinstated in service however, in the present case, High Court wrongly observed that his intervening period may be treated as extraordinary leave without salary

No jurisdictional error, infirmity and illegality having been found in the impugned judgment, the same was maintained by the Supreme Court.

Civil servant was compulsorily retired from service on the allegation of getting average and below average Annual Confidential Reports

Order passed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal

Plea raised by civil servant was that reports in question were never communicated to. him

Validity

Average remarks in Annual Confidential Reports were not communicated to civil servant hence he had no opportunity to meet the same

Annual Confidential Reports in question having been made ground for premature retirement of civil servant, therefore, same should have been communicated to him and finalized accordingly before any action could be taken against him under S.13 of Civil Servants Act, 1973

Average entry in Annual Confidential Report was not adverse unless disciplinary action was initiated on such ground and communicated to the civil servant

Order of compulsory retirement and judgment of Service Tribunal were set aside by Supreme Court and civil servant was reinstated in service with back benefits

Appeal was allowed.

Respondent/employee while serving as cashier in Bank was charge-sheeted, inquiry was conducted against the employee and Inquiry Committee recommended stoppage of three increments, but the Bank Management disagreeing with the Committee's recommendation, compulsorily retired the employee from service

Employee filed grievance petition against order of compulsory retirement and for his reinstatement in service with back-benefits

Labour Court accepted grievance petition of employee to the extent that punishment of stoppage of three increments would remain intact and employee would be reinstated in service and that as the punishment had remained intact, employee would be entitled to the back- benefits to the tune of 50%

Both employee and Bank filed their respective appeals

Bank requested for upholding the order of compulsory retirement of employee in appeal and for setting aside impugned judgment, whereas employee in his appeal had requested for his reinstatement without any penalty of stoppage of increment and with 100% back-benefits

Validity

Wording of charge-sheet against the employee conveyed a different message than the actual happening and that very situation was minutely dealt with by the Labour Court in its impugned judgment

Finding of the Labour Court was that employee did not embezzle/misappropriate any amount as alleged by the Bank

Some negligence on the part of employee, however was found by the Labour Court and when an employee was found negligent, then major penalty could not be imposed, but minor penalty would be a sufficient one, which was imposed as per recommendations of Inquiry Committee and that was upheld

When reinstatement was made with even a minor penalty, it would not be appropriate to burden that employer for granting the employee all the back-benefits

Judgment of the Labour Court was modified to the extent of 50% back-benefits granted by the Labour Court to employee

Employee would be reinstated into service, but with a minor penalty of stoppage of three increments and without any back-benefits.

Petitioners being doctors were proceeded against departmentally for issuing false medical certificate regarding post-mortem of deceased who had died in police custody

During inquiry allegations of negligence were duly established against petitioners and they were retired compulsorily from service

Appeals filed by petitioners were dismissed by Service Tribunal vide impugned order

Service Tribunal had discussed material available on record at length without omitting to take into consideration any document/material produced by petitioners

When an order had been passed justly and properly in exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon Tribunal, no interference was called for by Supreme Court

Petition was dismissed.

Penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon appellant after charge-sheeting him and holding inquiry against him on allegation that he, while posted as Additional Sessions Judge, demanded illegal gratification from complainant for showing him favour

Enquiry Officer exonerated appellant in his inquiry report, but Authorized Officer, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, served appellant with final show-cause notice with an offer of personal hearing

Authorized Officer recommended to Authority compulsory retirement of appellant and competent Authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement accordingly

Authorized Officer had found that crucial admissions of accused officer/appellant definitely proved his widely known reputation of being corrupt

Conclusion drawn from said admissions was agreed by Authority for imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement

Validity

Rule 5(4), North- West Frontier Provincial Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 did not denote any inbuilt mechanism to make Authorized Officer absolutely bound by the conclusion of Enquiry Officer because in such eventuality, the sphere of empowerment of Authorized Officer would be reduced to nullity

When the reports of Enquiry Officer and Authorized Officer were at variance evidence recorded by Enquiry Officer to prove charge of being deficient and statement of appellant in written replies were taken into account to hold the appellant guilty; it would have certainly been in the interest of justice and most important for the 'Authority' to extend chance of personal hearing to appellant before imposing major penalty

Such a personal hearing was highly essential in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to `Authority' for fresh decision after affording a fair chance of personal hearing to appellant within specified period.

Major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on employee on allegation that he had committed misconduct by misplacing the file of a consumer seeking installation of a new domestic connection, with ulterior motive

Grievance petition filed by the employee against said penalty was accepted by the Labour Court declaring impugned order as void and directing reinstatement of employee in service with 50% bout-benefit and employers had filed appeal against said orders of the Labour Court

Witnesses produced by the employers, had themselves proved beyond shadow of doubt that neither the prescribed procedure was adopted nor was any inquiry conducted under authority of competent authority

Neither a fair chance of being heard was provided to the employee nor penal order was passed by competent authority

Whole proceedings in circumstances, were unholy, coram non judice and void ab initio

Question of limitation or laches, in circumstances would not arise

Rights of the employee could not be defeated due to receipt of pensionary benefit by him.

Employer having served show-cause notice to respondents (employees) under provisions of Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, respondents filed petition under Ss.49(4)(e) & 63 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before National Industrial Relations Commission, which had passed an interim order

On adjourned date of hearing, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed by the employer upon employees in exercise of powers under S.13(5) of the Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Petitioner had assailed, interim order passed by National Industrial Relations Commission praying that said interim order of the Commission be declared as without jurisdiction and all subsequent orders recorded by Commission be set aside being without lawful authority

Employees being Provincial Government servants, could be proceeded against under the Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

If employees felt aggrieved of any action of the employer/Authority under the provisions of Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, they could not invoke the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission, which was not meant for those controversies

Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, could not exercise its jurisdiction by entertaining employer's petition and then issuing any interim order

Commission having exceeded its jurisdiction, impugned order passed by Commission, was declared to be void, illegal having no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

On checking the authenticity of said medical certificate, it was found false and forged and Authority did not sanction leave sought for and directed the appellant to report for duty immediately-.Appellant did not report for duty and sent another application for grant of 180 days, which was rejected by the Authority and appellant remained applying for leave

Appellant finally was issued show cause notice and after holding inquiry against him, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him

Validity

Appellant could have been sick initially, but medical certificates he submitted to the Authority for extension of leave were found to be false and forged which tantamount to misconduct

Appellant, in circumstances had committed a serious act of fraud and forgery and was guilty of misconduct which called for a major penalty under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000

Department originally issued the notification of compulsory retirement, which was later on changed to dismissal from service under the garb of typographical mistake which was not justifiable

Department was not empowered to enhance the penalty once imposed, without giving reasons and providing sufficient opportunity of defence to the appellant

Penalty of compulsory retirement awarded to appellant was upheld, but penalty of dismissal from service imposed through notification was set aside.