PLJ 2011 Tr.C.
(Services) 7
[
Present:
Tallat Mahmood Tariq, Member-II
RIZWAN MEHMOOD, EX-DRIVER NO. 727, PS CHAK JHUMRA,
DISTRICT
versus
SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Appeal
No. 1584 of 2009, decided on 29.1.2010.
----Scope--Action
by incompetent authority--Incharge Training School
could not be termed as competent authority for award of punishment to a
trainee--Head of training institutions is not empowered to award punishment to
a trainee--At the most, head of training institutions can send back the trainee
to his parent district along with substance of allegations for taking
departmental action by the competent authority--Civil servant cannot be
terminated without regular inquiry--Appeal was allowed. [Pp. 8 & 9] A
Mr.
Asif Nazir Awan, Counsel for Appellant.
Mr.
Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date
of hearing: 21.1.2010.
Judgment
Brief
facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against under Punjab
Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006. He was issued
a show-cause notice dated 3.11.2008 on the allegation of willful absence for
duty. The appellant failed to submit reply in response to the show-cause
notice. Ultimately, vide order dated 31.12.2008 passed by Respondent No. 1, the
appellant was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service by taking ex-parte decision. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal
the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before Respondent No. 2 on
15.01.2009 who rejected the same vide order dated
24.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the impugned orders are against law and facts. No regular
inquiry has been conducted against the appellant before awarding him major
punishment of dismissal from service. It has been argued that absence of the
appellant was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the compelling
circumstances which were beyond his control. It has been further argued that
the alleged period of absence of the appellant has been regularized by the
authority by treating the same as leave without pay. Therefore, imposition of
penalty is a clear violation of law laid down by the
3. On the other hand, the appeal has been
resisted by the respondents through reply/parawise
comments submitted by them. They also defended the impugned orders passed by
the competent authority as well as appellate authority.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the
parties and perused the relevant record.
5. Admittedly, the appellant has been awarded
major punishment of dismissal from service without holding a regular inquiry.
It is a settled law that whenever a charge contemplates a major penalty, a
proper, detailed and regular inquiry should be held instead of adopting of
summary procedure of issuance of show-cause notices. In view of 1997 PLC (CS))
817 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) & 2000 PLC (CS) 937 (Supreme Court of
Pakistan), it has been held that in case the allegations against the employee
are of serious nature and he denies the same, a regular inquiry cannot be
dispensed with. To clarify the point whether the SSP PTS Rawalpindi
was competent to award punishment to a trainee during the training period, a
notice was issued to the AIG (Legal) to depute a responsible officer. Mr. Naveed-ur-Rehman, T/ASI has appeared on behalf of AIG
(Legal) and has categorically stated that as per instructions and rules, Incharge training school could not be termed as competent
authority for award of punishment to a trainee. In this regard
learned counsel for
the appellant also
relied upon the judgments passed in Appeals No. 3865,
1679/2008 & 1665/2007. The above mentioned judgments also clearly laid down
the law point that the Head of training institutions is not empowered to award
punishment to a trainee. At the most, the head of the training institutions can
send back the trainee to his parent district alongwith
the substance of allegations for taking departmental action by the competent
authority. Impugned orders are, therefore, not sustainable and liable to be set
aside.
6. For what has been
discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and impugned orders
dated 31.12.2008 & 24.06.2009 are set aside. Resultantly, the appellant is
reinstated in service though departmental disciplinary action against him shall
be deemed to be still pending. The authority shall pass an order for holding of
a regular inquiry through an inquiry officer. On receipt of findings of the
inquiry the authority shall conclude the matter afresh in accordance with law.
The status of intervening period shall be decided by the competent authority at
the finalization of the inquiry.
(R.A.) Appeal
accepted.