Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BADSHAH KHAN VS Respondent: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1013
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member‑I
BADSHAH KHAN
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES
AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
LAHORE and another
Appeal No. 61 of 2001, decided on 15th March, 2002.
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, Rr. 4 & 5‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Civil servant appointed on the recommendations of Punjab Public Service Commission, made representation to the Director of the Department that he be transferred anywhere else in Punjab because attitude of his seniors including Deputy Director was very harsh towards him, but his representation was rejected with warning to avoid such uncalled for representations in future‑‑‑Subsequently on complaint of Deputy Director of the Department, services of civil servant were terminated under S.10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 without conducting regular inquiry against him and without affording him opportunity to produce his defence‑‑‑Civil servant who was in BS‑16 was appointed by Secretary and Competent Authority to decide whether proceedings under rules were to be initiated against civil servant, was Secretary, but show‑cause notice was issued to civil servant by Deputy Director without direction of Competent Authority which had proved that Deputy Director had exceeded his powers‑‑ Order terminating services of civil servant which otherwise was mala fide, passed without conducting regular inquiry and without affording civil servant opportunity to produce his defence, was set aside and civil servant was re instated in service.
PLD 1974 SC 393 and PLD 1997 SC 1552 ref.
Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 15th March, 2002.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts leading. to the appeal are that on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, the appellant was appointed as Survey and Drawing Officer (BS‑16) in the Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development on 8‑6‑1998.
2. On 8‑2‑1999, the appellant made representation to the Director of Industries and Mineral Development Department, Punjab (through proper channel) that he may be transferred anywhere else in the Punjab because the attitude of the seniors is very harsh towards him. His representation was rejected on 25‑3‑1999 with the warning to avoid such uncalled representation in future.
3. On 13‑8‑1999, his explanation was called by Deputy Director Development, D.G. Khan on the ground that one Ghulam Qadir Khan Niazi, Contractor of Sand in the bed of River Indus has made written complaint that sand from the area leased out to him is being stolen. The said complaint was marked to the appellant for investigation but the appellant came to the office of Deputy Director, Mineral Development and refused to probe into the matter. In reply dated 21‑8‑1999, the appellant denied the allegation.
3‑A. Respondent No. 1, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Industries and Mineral Development Department vide order dated 19‑2‑2000 terminated the services of the appellant under section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 on the ground that complaint was made against him by the Deputy Director, Mineral Development, D.G. Khan and it was recommended by Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab. The departmental appeal was rejected on 11‑12‑2000. Hence, this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have persued the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the services of the " appellant have been terminated without conducting regular inquiry against him and without affording him opportunity to produce his defence due to personal enmity of Deputy Director, Mineral Development, D .G. Khan. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued lied that the appellant had made request to Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab for his B transfer due to the behaviour of Deputy Dirk. for , Mineral Development but it was regretted. The appellant was issued show‑cause notice by the Deputy Director Mineral Development, D.G. Khan allegedly that the appellant failed to make inquiry regarding theft of sand on the application of Ghulam Qadir Niazi lease‑holder. The affidavit on behalf of Ghulam Qadir Khan Niazi is placed with the tile to prove that he has not filed any application/ complaint.
6. The respondents in their objections, to the memorandum of appeal have stated that attitude of the appellant was indifferent and irresponsible. The appellant was on probation period and his services were terminated under section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
7. The appellant was appointed oil the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The appellant made request for his transfer because the attitude of Deputy Director, Mineral Development, D.G. Khan was harsh towards him. His request was rot acceded to. On 13‑8‑1999, Deputy Director, Mineral Development, D.C. Khan issued him show‑cause notice as to why his services should not be terminated by proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules. because the appellant has failed to probe on the complaint of Ghulam Qadir Khall Niazi, lease‑holder regarding steeling of sand from the area leased out to him. The appellant was in BS‑16 and was appointed by the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department. The competent Authority to decide that proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules is to be initiated against him, is the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development according to rule 5, Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The issuing of show‑cause notice for proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules by the Deputy Director without the direction of the Authority is the proof that the Deputy Director, Mineral Development, D.G. Khan exceeded his powers. The appellant, in reply to the show‑cause notice denied the allegation on 21‑8‑1999.
8. Vide impugned order dated 19‑2‑2000, the services of the appellant were terminated because the appellant made, request far his transfer and he failed to probe regarding theft of the sand on the application of Ghulam Qadir Khan Niazi, Ghulam Qadir Khan Niazi in his affidavit he has denied that he made such complaint. It was held in PLD 1974 Supreme Court 393 that where the services of probationer were terminated on grounds of misconduct, such course amounts to removal or dismissal and probationer, being stigmatized, show‑cause notice and proper inquiry against probationer is necessary. It was also held in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 1552 that where person is to be condemned for misconduct, in that event, even if he is a temporary employee or a person employed on contract basis or probationer, he is entitled to a fair opportunity to clear his position which means that there should be a regular inquiry in terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules before condemning him for the alleged misconduct.
9. The plea of the respondents, that the services of the appellant were terminated under section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is not sustainable in law.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted, impugned orders dated 19‑2‑2000 and 11‑12‑2000 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. Intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no order as to the costs.
H.B.T./75/PST Appeal accepted