ZAKA ULLAH BAJWA vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and others
This petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the petitioner's removal from service despite finding that only one of seven original charges was proven. The departmental authority had initially imposed the major penalty of removal based on the finding that all seven charges were substantiated. Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that six charges were unfounded but maintained the penalty of removal without reconsidering whether such a severe punishment remained appropriate given that only a single charge of willful absence and failure to report for duty was proven. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, acting as the first appellate forum, failed to apply its judicial mind to the quantum of punishment in light of the reduced number of proven charges. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal was obligated to evaluate whether the major penalty was commensurate with the remaining proven charge. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh determination on whether the major penalty of removal from service was legally justified under the altered circumstances.
- Is a Service Tribunal required to reconsider the quantum of punishment when it finds that only some of the charges against a civil servant are proven?
- Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to apply its judicial mind regarding the proportionality of a penalty constitute a valid ground for remand?
- Can a major penalty of removal from service be maintained if the appellate authority finds that the majority of charges against the employee were not proven?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 12-5-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by the departmental authority has been upheld on the ground that out of 7 charges only charge No,1 had been proved.
2. Charge No,1 reads as under:- "That you wilfully absented yourself without leave from place of duty i,e, Narowal on 10th and 11th March, 1999. Your services were placed at the disposal of Commissioner Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala vide order No,EA/1455/C, dated 11-31999 but you had failed to report to the Office of the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division till the date of your suspension i,e, 12-4-1999."
3. The authority imposed major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner on considering that all the seven charges had been proved which were of serious nature.
4. The Tribunal, however, came to the conolusion in the impugned judgment that only charge No,1 out of seven charges had been proved but proceeded to maintain the major penalty of removal from service imposed by the authority without applying its judicial mind as to whether in the circumstances of the case i,e, that only Charge No,1 had been proved, the said penalty commensurate with the nature of the charge in the light of the attending circumstances of the case as it was argued that the order of transfer of the petitioner in the departmental appeal was withdrawn, therefore, Charge No,1 that the petitioner did not report for duty after transfer order was made, should have been considered in the light thereof. Learned counsel also submitted that there was only charge of two days absence which had been explained that the petitioner was asked to perform other duties which had not been considered while maintaining the major penalty of removal, from service.
5. The argument has considerable force. The appeal before the Tribunal being first appeal, therefore, before upholding the order of the departmental authority it should have gone into all the aspects of the case inclusive of the question of quantum of penalty by application of judicial mind to the facts of the case which exercise had not been undertaken in this case particularly when only Charge No,1 was held to have been proved for which reason this exercise had become necessary.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the same is partly accepted in that the part of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal of upholding the major penalty of removal from service imposed by the departmental authority is hereby set aside and the case is remanded for limited purpose of deciding that in view of the findings that only Charge No,1 had been proved, major penalty of removal from service of the departmental authority was legally justified in the fact and circumstances of this case.
' No order as to costs.