Suspension

After noting some shortcomings on the part of petitioner, the concerned authority suspended Sales Tax Registration with immediate effect

Such act proved that prior to order of suspension, petitioner was not communicated with regard to shortcomings, if any recorded by the authority

No reply was obtained from the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him

High Court declined to endorse action taken by authority with immediate effect as no one could be condemned unheard

Before drawing any adverse inference, authority was bound to call explanation / reply from petitioner and in absence of such mandatory legal requirement, action of authority was non-est in the eyes of law

High Court directed the authority to restore Sales Tax Registration of petitioner in accordance with law as its decision was illegal and unqualified for

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Suspension does not finally determine the matter; its sole purpose is that the person against whom severe allegations of misconduct, flagrant abuse of powers and disgraceful conduct is levelled may be restrained from causing further damage to the finances of the institution

Suspension order is absolutely interim in nature and does not attain any finality.

Petitioner was Chairman Municipal Committee who was suspended from the post on the allegations of misconduct and corruption

Validity

In law suspension was not defined as punishment and did not finally determine the matter

Sole purpose of suspension was that the person against whom severe allegations of misconduct, flagrant abuse of powers and disgraceful conduct was levelled could be restrained from causing further damage to finances of the institution

Suspension order was interim in character and did not attain any finality

Against adverse result of inquiry, if any, petitioner had the remedy of appeal and in presence of such adequate remedy, High Court at such juncture declined to step in to declare the suspension of petitioner illegal and void on the ground that order of suspension was not passed by competent authority

Objection of petitioner on his suspension was technical and procedural

Petitioner was facing allegations of corruption and in such circumstances, High Court refrained to exercise discretion in his favour and thwart the whole process of inquiry against him and set aside his suspension on any of the technical ground

Such would amount to interfering in the right of authority to inquire into allegations against petitioner

Petitioner was not prejudiced by his suspension

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suspension period of ninety days was neither extended nor competent authority had rendered any reason that suspension of the employee was necessary or expedient

Employee on expiry of initial suspension period viz ninety days had automatically gained reinstatement

Employee was charged in criminal case with regard to civil dispute of inheritance and he had been granted bail

Nothing was on record that reinstatement of employee would make any embarrassment for him in the performance of his duties

Employee under suspension was entitled to get full pay for the suspension period

No one could be kept under suspension for an indefinite period

Impugned order was against rules and was not sustainable which was set aside

Employee was to be deemed to have been reinstated in service on expiry of ninety days from the issuance of notification of his suspension

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Competent authority had proceeded against the employee under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

High Court could not resolve factual controversy while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction

Suspension was a temporary measure wherein employee received his all emoluments although no work during suspension was taken

Present matter was with regard to terms and conditions of service of employee

Suspension was not a punishment

If any final order was passed against the petitioner employee he would have remedy before the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal

High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could not consider the intermediate stage of proceedings with regard to terms and conditions of a civil servant when the same were to merge in the final order

Piecemeal decisions were not the intention of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil servant was to wait for decision of his application/representation till expiry of ninety days and if it remained unattended during that period, he might approach Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance

Jurisdiction of High Court had been ousted in the matters with regard to terms and conditions of service

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Suspension was not a punishment and employee under suspension would be entitled to full emoluments.

Petitioner sought suspension of black warrant on the plea that he was suffering from tuberculosis meningitis and was permanently paralyzed therefore, he had become medically unfit for execution of death sentence

Validity

No rule existed declaring hanging of a disabled person as illegal

High Court declined to interfere in the execution of black warrant

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Claim of the petitioner was that his suspension as well as initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him had been initiated by an incompetent authority

Department raised objection on maintainability of writ petition being matter related to terms and conditions of service

Validity

Authority, who had suspended the petitioner and had passed the order of inquiry and subsequently for de novo inquiry, had no jurisdiction in the matter and as such order was coram non judice

Bar contained in S.47 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 was not attracted as High Court could not ask the petitioner to wait till he was illegally hanged

Writ of prohibition could be issued to an Authority or Tribunal to refrain from proceeding further in any proceedings in which it had no jurisdiction to proceed under law

Order of suspension as well as inquiry proceedings were quashed

Writ petition was allowed.

Grievance relating to terms and conditions of civil servant had to be decided by the Service Tribunal on a regular appeal where no adverse order had been passed against the petitioner, there was no occasion for approaching the Service Tribunal

Writ petition was maintainable.

Suspension pending disciplinary action germane to the terms and conditions of service and appeal against such order was maintainable before Service Tribunal

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution to scrutinize the suspension order was ousted

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Suspension of a government servant during the course of his service simply means that no work is to be taken from him during the period of suspension

Suspension is only a temporary measure, wherein the employees are entitled to their full emoluments.

Petitioner was probationer Assistant Sub-Inspector and was sent on training but due to her absence without leave for two days, she was dropped from training and was suspended by Commandant Training School

Validity

Commandant had no power to remove petitioner from training

Petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing or show cause to explain her position

Commandant proceeded on assumption that petitioner was not interested in training and she had exhibited wilful absence, which facts were irrelevant and were no more than figment of imagination, of Commandant

Competent authority of petitioner was Capital City Police Officer as her appointment letter showed, therefore, Commandant had no power to suspend petitioner

Petitioner arrived at course just two days late supported with valid reason but was thrown out of year long course at very beginning of her career, as such the same rendered discretion of Commandant unreasonable and disproportionate to gravity of lapse committed by petitioner, therefore, could not be sustained

Order passed by Commandant was without legal authority and without legal effect

High Court directed Commandant to take petitioner back into course

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Appellant against whom criminal cases were registered, was kept under suspension continuously for a period of about six years without approval of competent Authority and suspension was made effective retrospectively

Authority had contended that suspension of appellant continuously over several years was quite legal and justified as it was in accordance with Regulation 194 of Civil Service Regulations under which there was no need to seek repeated approval of competent Authority for keeping him under suspension for the reason that he was to be kept under suspension till termination of proceedings against him

Validity

Regulation 194 of Civil Service Regulations, did not override Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Suspension of appellant was void in the eyes of law because period of suspension of appellant which should be initially for three months. extendable with the approval of competent Authority after every three months as required under R.5 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, was not done and appellant had been kept under suspension continuously for a period of about six years without approval of competent Authority

Suspension of appellant was liable to be set aside and he was to be treated on duty with all back benefits

No executive order could be made effective retrospectively as had been done in the case of appellant vide impugned order

Impugned order was set aside with direction to Authorities to treat appellant on duty for the entire period of his suspension with all consequential benefits.

Contention of the Authority that under S.4 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, it had powers to continue the suspension without any check was misconceived because when suspension was pending inquiry, an elaborate procedure had been given for the completion of inquiry within a definite period

District Attorney had made a candid statement that inquiry against appellant would be completed up to specified date positively

In case appellant would evade service or refuse to attend inquiry proceedings after having answered the summons, Inquiry Officer's powers would not be stifled to make him helpless, rather apart from adopting coercive measures, he could proceed against the appellant ex parte

Appellant did not want to press his appeal any further and had sought its withdrawal

Appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.