THE SECRETARY, LG AND RD and others vs Dr. AMJAD ALI KHAN
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Department against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which set aside a major penalty of reduction in rank imposed on the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether a Medical Officer holding additional charge as Officer of Health could be held responsible for a fatal cholera outbreak caused by contaminated water supplied by the Public Health Engineering Department, and whether the impugned penalty was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court observed that the joint inquiry report of the Commissioner exonerated the Health Department and explicitly held officials of the Public Health Engineering Department responsible for the water supply scheme. Finding that the respondent had been completely exonerated on facts and that no legal infirmity was pointed out in the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court held that no ground for interference was made out. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
- Whether a civil servant can be penalized for negligence regarding a matter managed exclusively by another public department?
- Can a disciplinary penalty be maintained when an official inquiry report has completely exonerated the concerned employee from liability?
- Pure Food Ordinance
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 27-3-2003 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by the respondent was accepted setting aside his punishment of his reduction in rank with a censure to him to be careful for his duties.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondent who was a Medical Officer in M.C. Bahawalpur was having an additional charge of the Officer of Health in June, 2000 in Islamia Colony, Bahawalpur, In one block, an epidemic of cholera spread which resulted into 14 deaths. An inquiry was conducted wherein it was determined that the epidemic spread due to contamination of water in the houses.
The respondent was charge-sheeted whereafter he was awarded major penalty of reduction in the rank by five stages below his present place.
3. Being aggrieved, he filed a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the Chairman, Local Government Board. Then he filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which has been accepted as stated in the preceding paragraph. Hence, the petitioners/departments have filed this petition against the impugned judgment dated 27-3-2003.
4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the respondent was not only Medical Officer but also having an additional charge of Officer of Health. It has come to light that the water supply scheme was under the charge of Public Health Engineering Department and the present respondent had nothing to do with that. The Commissioner in his report had totally exonerated the Health Department and held the Public Health Engineering Department responsible. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which is in the following terms:-- "5. After hearing the arguments it is observed that appellant was pleading his case on a wrong ground. No doubt under Local Government Ordinance water is exempted but under the Pure Food Ordinance he was supposed to take water samples which he did not. At the same time had he collected samples the cause of epidemic would have not been determined unless the Samples would have not been taken form the affected houses. Bahawalpur is a big city which is connected by many water supply schemes. The instant water supply scheme was under the charge of Public Health Engineering Department. Though not barred yet it was the responsibility of Public Health Engineering Department to take the samples. Report of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur after joint inquiry has fixed the responsibility upon 5 Officers/Officials of Public Health Engineering Department, Municipal Corporation and. Health Department have been exempted. Further, the punishment awarded to the appellant is not provided under the rules under which he has been proceeded against. Appeal is accepted. The impugned order of punishment and rejection of appeal are set aside with a censure to the appellant to be careful for his duties."
5. So far as the ground of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the punishment awarded to the respondent was provided in the Statute and the Punjab Service Tribunal has wrongly held that the same was not available under the rules. We are not inclined to undertake this plea in the present case as in this case the respondent had totally been exonerated. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
6. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.