Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR VS Respondent: D.I.-G. PRISONS, LAHORE
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 151
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
ZULFIQAR
Versus
THE D.I.- G. PRISONS, LAHORE and another
Appeal No. 789 of 1988, decided on 4th September, 1990.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974,)---
----S. 4---Punjab Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1982---Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-- Removal from service---Appellant, Temporary Warden in Jail was first suspended for misconduct and then was charge-sheeted and removed from service as a result of inquiry wherein the Inquiry Officer found him guilty-- Appellant though was governed by Punjab Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1982, but neither charge-sheet nor show-cause notice, nor even impugned order of his removal from service carried even a passing reference to the said Rules---Show-cause notice was purportedly issued under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which were not applicable to the appellant---Show-cause notice had been issued under signatures of Superintendent District Jail who was incorrectly shown as Authorised Officer whereas the concept of Authorised Officer did not form part of Punjab Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1982---Appellant, in charge-sheet, was required to submit his written explanation within a period of three days whereas a period of seven days was to be allowed under 1982 Rules which was a mandatory provision for the purpose---Held, since departmental proceedings had not been concluded under Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff Rules, 1982, said proceedings were void ab initio---Order of removal from service of appellant was set aside and case was remanded for holding departmental proceedings de novo strictly in accordance with law and the Rules of 1982.
Muhammad Ikram zahid for Appellant.
Manzoor Hussain, DA. for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 26th June and ?-0th August, 1990.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER):---Zulfiqar Ali while posted as temporary Warder in the District Jail, Shahpur was on duty on the main wall of the Jail when a Patrolling Officer checked him and found him in possession of four discs which should not have been there as he was required to circulate a disc after every 12 minutes. The appellant not only refused to circulate the discs but had a quarrel with the Patrolling Officer and beat him. The matter was reported to the authorities and an enquiry was held into the incident. The appellant was charge-sheeted and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. He was served with a show-cause notice. The Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Jail, Shahpur in the light of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after giving the appellant an opportunity for personal hearing passed orders for his removal from service. The appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority i.e. the D.I: G. Prisons (Headquarters), Punjab, Lahore was also rejected. The instant appeal has been filed against the aforesaid impugned orders dated 18-6-1988 of the Superintendent District Jail, Shahpur (respondent No.2) and dated 12-10-1988 of the D.I: G. Prisons, Lahore (respondent No-1).
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the departmental proceedings. 'The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed, in the appeal as also during his submissions before the Tribunal, the aforesaid impugned orders on the following Rounds:
(i) that no proper enquiry was held and the appellant was condemned unheard;
(ii) that in view of the apology tendered by him and the resultant compromise the orders of removal were not justified.
3. The enquiry proceedings suffer from more than one defect which are too obvious to be ignored. It is nowhere mentioned as to under which law or rules the enquiry was being conducted. The appellant was governed by the Punjab Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1982 and yet the charge-sheet or the show-cause notice or for that even the impugned orders do not carry even a passing reference to these rules. In fact, the show-cause notice has purportedly been issued under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline Rules. 1975 which
4. This show-cause notice has been issued under the signatures of the Supdt., District Jail, Shahpur who has incorrectly been shown as Authorised Officer whereas the concept of Authorised Officer does not form part of the aforesaid 1982 Rules.
5. In the above mentioned charge-sheet the appellant was required to submit his written explanation within a period of three days. This was in clear violation of the mandatory provision of the 1982 Rules wherein a period of seven days has been provided for the purpose.
6. Since the departmental proceedings have not been conducted under the Prisons Subordinate Executive Staff (E & D) Rules, 1982, these proceedings are, therefore, void ab initio. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority for holding the departmental proceedings de novo strictly in accordance with the law and the aforesaid Rules of 1982. The intervening period between the appellant's removal from service and his reinstatement shall be determined by the competent authority.
Copy of the signed judgment be delivered to the parties in accordance with the procedure of the Tribunal.
M.Y.H./314/Sr.P Appeal allowed.