CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others vs Al-Haj Professor
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Sindh against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal from service of a college principal. The core legal question was whether the departmental enquiry leading to the respondent's removal was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and due process. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed. The Enquiry Officer failed to appear at the scheduled time, subsequently conducted proceedings behind the respondent's back without notice, and submitted a report finding the respondent guilty without examining the accused or any witnesses. The Court held that the department acted without application of mind in accepting this report. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant must strictly adhere to due process; an enquiry conducted in absentia without notice to the accused and without evidence is void, and the State should not pursue uncalled-for litigation when no question of law of public importance exists.
- Is a departmental enquiry valid if conducted behind the back of the accused official without notice?
- Can a penalty of removal from service be sustained if the enquiry report is based on no evidence and lacks due process?
- Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to attend a scheduled hearing invalidate subsequent proceedings held in the absence of the accused?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-Government of Sindh seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 20-4-2004 of the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) striking down the order of removal from service passed against respondent No,1 as not sustainable and illegal and directing the Education Department to issue notification of retirement of respondent No,1 on attaining the age of superannuation.
2. Respondent No,1 being Principal was transferred from St. Patrick's College No,2, Karachi and posted as Associate Professor, Government College for Education Federal "B" Area, Karachi.
Respondents Nos.2 Mazkoorur Rehman was posted as Principal of the College in his place, to which respondent No,1 took a serious exception and filed Constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh, which was dismissed on the premise that matter relating to transfer/posting of civil servants being relatable to terms and conditions of service would squarely fall within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal.
3. Meanwhile, respondent No,1 was preceded with, on the charge of disobedience of a lawful order of competent authority by not handing over the charge of office of Principal to respondent No,2 and by not assuming the office of the Associate Professor to which he was transferred. A departmental enquiry was held but as held by the Tribunal, the enquiry was fixed on 20-5-1999 at 11-00 a.m. At the office of Director Colleges Education, on which date respondent No,1 appeared but the Enquiry Officer did not turn up till 11-30 a.m. With the result that the respondent left the office.
Enquiry was deferred to 22-5-1999 at 10-00 a.m. Behind the back of the accused official but no intimation was sent to him. Enquiry Officer thereafter, without examining the accused official or any other witness submitted his finding that the responderit was guilty of the charge of misconduct.
Acting on such report, Education Department, Government of Sindh imposed the penalty of removal from service on the respondent, which was challenged before the Tribunal. On its part, Full Bench of the Tribunal struck down the penalty imposed on the respondent but, in view of the respondent attaining the age of superannuation during pendency of the appeal, directed the department to issue notification of his retirement. It is as against this judgment that the petitioners feel aggrieved.
4. We have heard Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate-General Sindh as well as respondent No,1, who appeared in person and carefully gone through the record. Judgment passed by the Tribunal, on the face of the record, in our view, is just, proper, fair and reasonable. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the Enquiry Officer did not reach the place of holding enquiry on the stipulated date and time and, without holding any enquiry against the respondent, submitted an adverse report to the department, which was accepted as gospel truth without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case culminating in imposition of major penalty of removal from service.
5. We are firmly of the view that this is not a fit case in which petition for leave to appeal should have been filed and in all propriety and fairness the department should have implemented the judgment of the Tribunal instead of entering into luxury of uncalled for litigation at State expenses.
Learned Advocate-General is unable to support the petition or place any convincing argument for the grant of leave. Indeed he had rendered legal opinion to the Government that no question of law being involved, this was not a fit case for appeal before this Court.
6. No question of law of public importance is spelt out in the circumstances, therefore, we dismiss this petition and refuse leave to appeal.
Cited by 2 cases
- (1) Major Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas (2) Mansoor Pasha vs Federation of Pakistan and others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 67, 2018 SHC 550
- AMIR JAMIL vs UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through Registrar and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 542