Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAHIR AZIZ VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPURHonorable Justice Muhammad AfzalAsif Nazir Awan,,Rana Muhammad Yasin
2005 P L C (C
2005 P L C (C.S.) 1195
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Afzal, Member-1
TAHIR AZIZ
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR and another
Appeal No.880 of 2003, decided on 8th July, 2003.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999-----
----R. 4(1)(b)(iv)---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4--Removal from service---Appeal---Appellant was removed from service after serving him with a show-cause notice on allegation that there were some adverse entries in his service record and on said ground he was not considered fit for further retention in service---Most of bad entries in service record of appellant were warnings, censures and stoppage of increments mainly because of some incidents of absence from duty---Appellant having already been punished on account of petty offences involving indiscipline, he could not be imposed a major punishment of removal' from service through cumulative impact of such past punishments---Allegations of carelessness etc. against appellant were vague and non-specific---Civil servant could not be punished on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations or any past minor punishment awarded to him---Impugned orders were set aside and appellant stood re-instated accordingly.
Asif Nazir Awan, for Appellant.
Rana Muhammad Yasin, District Attorney for Respondent No. 1
Dilshad Ahmad, Clerk on behalf of Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 8th July, 2003.
JUDGMENT
The appellant is Ex-Warder, District Jail, Shaikhpura, who was served with a show-cause notice containing the allegations that there were some adverse entries in his service record and was not considered fit for further retention in service. The appellant replied to the show-cause notice. However, he was removed from service through impugned order dated 21-8-2002. The appellant filed representation, which was rejected on 23-4-2003, hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that in the first place he was never informed about any bad entries in service record and secondly, if there were any adverse entries or any minor punishment awarded to the appellant in the past, the appellant could not be awarded a major punishment of removal from service on the basis of such past minor punishments. It is also maintained by the learned counsel that the appellant has been subjected to double jeopardy and as per law, the appellant could not be punished twice for the same offence. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant that no regular inquiry was held and the committee which examined his case could not become a substitute of Inquiry Officer and the appellant could not be punished on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents through their written objections. It is maintained by the respondents that action was taken against the appellant under good governance/Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It is also maintained that record of the appellant was examined and was not found satisfactory, there being many punishments to his discredit. It is also stated by the respondents that action was taken against the appellant in accordance with law.
4. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that most of the bad entries in the service record of the appellant are warnings, censures and stoppage of increments mainly because of some incidents of absence from duty. The appellant having already been punished on account of petty offences involving indiscipline; he could not be imposed a major punishment of removal from service through cumulative impact of such past punishments. I also find that allegation of carelessness etc. were vague and non-specific. I also agree with the learned counsel for appellant that committee which examined the service record of the appellant could not become the substitute of Inquiry Officer. Further, in many recent judgments of this Tribunal (Appeals Nos.2757/02 decided on 11-3-2003, 2955/02, 2956/02 and 2060/02 decided on 2-4-2003), the Punjab Service Tribunal has consistently held that a civil servant could not be punished on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations or any past minor punishments awarded to him. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, impugned orders are found devoid of legal footing and the same are set aside. Appeal is, therefore, accepted. The appellant shall stand reinstated and period intervening shall he treated as leave of the kind due.
H.B.T./46/PST Appeal accepted.
***