Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI VS Respondent: SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE
1993 P L C (C
1993 P L C (C.S.) 134
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Akhtar Hassan, Chairman, Abdul Aziz and Abdul Hamid Khan, Members
SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI
Versus
SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Appeal No. 517 of 1988, decided on 3rd September, 1992.
(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R.4‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Show‑cause notice served on civil servant contained more than one charge but penalty had been imposed on him on basis of only one charge‑‑‑Other charges in show‑cause notice would be inferred to have not been established.
(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Only charge against civil servant that was established on record was that of his direct correspondence with senior officers by ignoring prescribed channel‑‑‑Civil servant's conduct even if found to be not quite according to standing instructions, deserved to be considered rationally‑‑‑Civil servant resorted to direct correspondence with his superiors for failure of his immediate boss to entertain his representations and complaints‑‑‑Civil servant's erratic behaviour was direct result of the situation created by placing him under one of his colleagues over whom he claimed seniority‑‑‑Civil servant when officially told not to correspond directly with senior officers, immediately stopped such correspondence‑‑‑Simple warning would have sufficed instead of subjecting civil servant to departmental enquiry and punishing him qn that count‑‑‑Penalty of censure imposed upon civil servant was set aside in circumstances.
Appellant in person.
Javaid Ahmad Cheerna, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 21st July, 1992.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Sabir Zameer Siddiqui, Assistant Technologist, Barani Agricultural Research Institute. Chakwal has filed this appeal against the penalty of censure imposed by respondent No. 2/Director, Oil Seeds Research Institute, Faisalabad vide order date 23‑12‑1987 and against order dated 4‑7‑1988 whereunder his departmental appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1/Secretary, Agriculture Punjab.
2. The show‑cause notice dated 13‑10‑1987 served on the appellant contained more than one charge but the aforesaid penalty has been imposed on him on the basis of only one charge VIZ. "for indulging into direct correspondence with the superior officer while ignoring his immediate and headquarters superiors". It can, therefore, safely be inferred that the other charges could not be established.
3. The appellant contended that correspondence made by him ignoring the prescribed channel was really not in violation of the standing instructions of Government. He explained that he had to write a few letters Semi‑officially direct to the Director‑General, Agriculture because his immediate boss, the Food Technologist, never cared to resolve the differences between him and the other Assistant Technologist whom the Department erroneously considered to be the appellant's controlling officer although both were holding posts of equivalent status. Another factor which had given rise to this state of affairs was the fact that the appellant had a genuine claim, which according to him was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, that he was senior to the other Assistant Technologist. He stated that he had submitted some representations to the Food Technologist for onward transmission to the Director‑General but when the former refused to forward the same, the appellant was left with no option but to send these direct to the Director‑General. He maintained that in the circumstances he was simply pushed into bypassing the channel, which in any event was permissible under the standing instructions of Government as laid down in the Punjab Government Manual of Secretariat Instructions "in matters of a personal nature" or "when it is desired that a matter should receive the personal attention of the individual addressed".
4. The learned District Attorney neither refuted the above facts narrated by the appellant nor did he have much to say in reply except that the fact of direct correspondence with the senior officers by ignoring the prescribed channel was on record which amounted to misconduct and hence the appellant was rightly punished.
5. The sanctity of line of command and channel of communication cannot be denied but in the circumstances of the case the conduct of the appellant even if found to be not quite according to standing instructions, deserves to be considered rationally. It is evident that he resorted to direct correspondence because the Food Technologist would not entertain his representations and complaints. His erratic behaviour was the direct result of the situation created by pleading the appellant under one of his colleagues over whom the former claimed seniority. Above all we must bear the fact in mind that after he was officially told not to correspond directly with the senior officers be immediately stopped it and this fact has not been denied by the respondents.
6. We feel that in a case like this a simple warning would have sufficed which the Department did administer through a telegram asking him to "avoid unnecessary correspondence in future". This had the desired effect on the appellant as from thereon `he stopped corresponding direct with the senior officers. Thereafter it was unnecessary to further subject him to a departmental enquiry and punish him on that account. We; therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. There are no orders as to cost.
A.A./434/Sr.S Appeal accepted.