Dr. Capt. MUHAMMAD SARWAR SHAHZAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a penalty of reduction in rank from BS-19 to BS-18 due to habitual absence from duty. The petitioner challenged the penalty, arguing that the Authorized Officer was only competent to impose minor penalties, that the initiation of fresh proceedings and a new inquiry officer violated the remand order, and that the penalty was excessive. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting that the petitioner failed to respond to multiple show-cause notices and that the Authorized Officer had referred the matter to the 'Authority' for a major penalty. The Court held that the Authorized Officer's power to impose minor penalties does not preclude a reference to the Authority for major penalties. Furthermore, the Court found that the second charge-sheet did not prejudice the petitioner as the allegations remained substantially the same, and declined to interfere with the quantum of penalty given the petitioner's habitual absence and conduct.
- Does the power of an Authorized Officer to impose a minor penalty preclude the referral of a case to the Authority for the imposition of a major penalty?
- Does the issuance of a second charge-sheet containing substantially similar allegations to a previous, unconcluded inquiry cause legal prejudice to a civil servant?
- Can a court interfere with the quantum of a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant for habitual absence?
- Rule 7-A, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
ORDER
' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The petitioner was proceeded against for absence from duty on nine occasions between 11-2-1996 to 22-1-1997 which culminated into the penalty of reduction from BS- 19 to BS-18 vide order, dated 28-4-2001. His review petition having been dismissed, he approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal who found that the appeal was barred by time. On merits, it was held that three inquiries held against the petitioner found him guilty of being an habitual absentee. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 4-2-1998, the Authorized Officer addressed a show-cause notice under Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 proposing a penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of three years. He maintains that since the Authorized Officer was competent to impose minor penalty, no further proceedings in the matter could be taken and, therefore, major penalty of reduction in rank was uncalled for. He next maintains that the penalty was imposed on the petitioner on the basis of a fresh charge-sheet and appointment of a new Inquiry Officer although the order of remand by the authority for de novo proceedings did not permit a fresh charge-sheet and appointment of another Inquiry Officer. He lastly maintains that in view of the unblemished record of the petitioner, the penalty awarded was excessive.
2-A. The submissions have been considered. The petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice and reminders issued to him on 21-2-1998, 31-3-1998 and 26-7-1998. On 3-8-1998, the Authorized Officer submitted that case to the "Authority" with a recommendation for imposition of a major penalty. However, de novo proceedings were ordered by the Authority. From the above facts, it is clear that no order was passed disposing of the case by the Authorized Officer or by the Authority on the recommendation of the Authorized Officer and a fresh charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 2-10-2000 on the basis of which the penalty was awarded to the petitioner. The provision empowering the Authorized Officer to impose minor penalty could not he interpreted to exclude a reference to the authority by the Authorized Officer. Further, this point was not agitated before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and, therefore, we do not feel inclined to examine it any further which is repelled. As far as the second contention is concerned, the allegations in the second charge-sheet were substantially the same as in the first charge-sheet and inquiry on the earlier charge-sheet having not been concluded no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. No principle of law could be pressed to invalidate the inquiry on the basis of second charge-sheet. As far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, no cause for interference is made out in view of petitioner's habitual absence, his conduct and the nature of his duties.
3. Accordingly, leave is declined and the .