SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI through Legal Heirs vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the imposition of a major penalty on a delinquent officer. The core legal question is whether the competent Authority can impose a major penalty when the authorized officer has not recommended the same. The Supreme Court held that the Authority is fully competent to differ with the recommendations of the authorized officer and impose a major penalty, provided it records sound and just reasons based on the evidence and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the delinquent officer. The Court laid down the principle that the recommendations of an authorized officer are not binding on the competent Authority, which retains the ultimate discretion to determine and impose an appropriate penalty after reviewing the relevant documents and defence.
- Whether the competent Authority is bound by the recommendation of the authorized officer in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can the competent Authority impose a major penalty when the authorized officer did not recommend the same?
- Is the competent Authority required to give reasons for disagreeing with the recommendations of the authorized officer?
ORDER
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Authority was not competent to impose major penalty when the authorized officer did not recommend the same.
3. We do not find substance in the said contention considering that the Authority is competent to differ with the proposed recommendation of authorized officer and could impose major penalty, which in his opinion is considered to be legal in view of the evidence on record upon the delinquent officer. It may be observed that after receiving the report dated 11-4-1989 of the authorized officer in respect of the petitioner the Authority issued notice for personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering relevant documents and defence of the petitioner gave sound reasons for not agreeing with the authorized officer in his order dated 19-9-1993 against which appeal was also preferred before the Director Food which too was rejected. We are of the view that Authority was quite competent in law to differ with regard to the authorized officer in the circumstances of the case as the Authority has given just and sound reasons in his order for disagreeing with the authorized officer after considering the relevant documents and defence of the petitioner.
Reference may be made to (i) Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director Food, Punjab and others 1992 SCMR 1864; (ii) Qazi Khalilur Rehman and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others 1994.
PLC (C.S.) 713, (iii) Sh. Abdul Waheed v. The Chief Secretary, Punjab 1985 PLC (C.S.) 886. No other plea has been raised.
4. We find that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, therefore, leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KAMAL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division_Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 162
- KAHLID MANSOOR vs DIRECTOR, F.I.A., RAWALPINDI and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1182
- KHALID MANSOOR vs DIRECTOR, F.I.A., RAWALPINDI and another 2008 SCMR 1174
- KHALID MANSOOR vs DIRECTOR, FIA, RAWALPINDI and another 2008 PLJ SC 764