Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IQBAL HUSSAIN GILANI VS Respondent: DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, BAHAWALPURHonorable Justice S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN
1984 P L C (C
1984 P L C (C. S.) 679
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members
IQBAL HUSSAIN GILANI
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, BAHAWALPUR AND OTHERS
Case No. 154/914 of 1981, decided on 7th December, 1982.
Civil service‑
‑Civil Servant suspended under orders of departmental authority‑ On enquiry found not guilty‑Recommendations of Authorised Officer for re‑instatement over ruled by departmental authority Suspension continued pending settlement of issue for over two years Departmental stand held by Tribunal unwarranted, against rules and Government Policy which require such Enquiries to be completed within 3 months‑Case ordered to be decided within one month or civil servant deemed re‑instated from date of suspension in circumstances.
Masud Ahmad Riaa for Appellant.
Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
JUNGMENT
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Syed Iqbal Hussain Gilani has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has challenged his suspension order dated 23rd July, 1980 extended from time to time, by virtue of which be is still under suspension till today. He has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur etc. as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of suspension dated 23rd July, 1980 passed by respondent may be set aside being without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, bad in law ab inirio void and he may be re‑instated with all arrears and other benefits of service.
3" Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was suspended under the orders of the Secretary Food by the Authorised Officer i. e. Deputy Director Food on 23rd July, 1980. The subject‑matter of suspension was probed by the Authorised Officer who was of the opinion that no case was made out against the appellant and thus recommended his re‑instatement. However, due to some reason or other, the recommendation of the Autho rised Officer, was not accepted by the Director of Food and the appellant remained suspended.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that under the instructions of the Government as well as policy laid down in this behalf the suspension of a civil servant should not be continued for such a long period as it results into hardship as well as creates administrative problems. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case, the period of extension has been extended for a period of more than two years and despite the recommendations in his favour for his re‑instatement, the Secretary Food is adament that unless and until the matter of `Bardana' is settled the suspension should continue. For this the learned counsel has relied on the written statement filed by the Respondents, which is on the record. ‑
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that suspension has been extended from time to time in a regular manner and the length of period would not be of any importance as this matter lies within the prerogative of the executives and the same may not be inter fered with.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both the parties before us and from the perusal of the comments filed by the Deputy Director Food `Authorised Officer' of the appellant on the record of this case, we find that the Authorised Officer all along has been of the opinion that the suspension was uncalled for and nothing was proved against the appellant during the course of enquiry but has expressed his helplessness in the face of the attitude of the Secretary Food who has overruled his recommendations on the ground that unless Bardana affair is settled, the appellant should remain suspended.‑
7. We are afraid we cannot agree with the stand of the Secretary Food as such like conditions are not warranted either in the procedure or, under the principle of justice and fairplay, It is a settled policy of the Government which has now been reiterated under the latest rules which are to the knowledge of this Tribunal also, that enquiry against a civil servant, should be completed within a period of 3 months so that he should know his fate abut the matter in dispute. We are also aware of the fact that the case of the appellant is pending before the Secretary Food who is required to give a decision over the recommendations of the Authorised Officer `Deputy Director Food' as well as of the Authority.
8. 1n view of the above, we hereby direct the Secretary to take some decision in the matter within a period of one month at the most from today and in case no decision is taken within this prescribed period so laid down by this Tribunal in view of the special circumstances of this case, the appellant would be deemed to have been re‑instated in service from the date he was suspended. Registrar of this Court should see that the judgment of this Tribunal is conveyed to Secretary Food within' four days. M. I. Appeal accepted.