EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION QADIRABAD and others

' JAVED IQBAL, ACTG. C.J.--- Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated on account of inefficiency and misconduct, the respondent was dismissed from service but reinstated by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of judgment impugned, hence this appeal.

2. Leave to appeal was granted vide order, dated 17-11-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- ' "Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal had misdirected itself in reinstating the respondent in service by the impugned judgment; dated 26-7-2005 after it had found that he had not carried out the repair work and had been absent from duty and rude to his superiors.

(2) Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia the above and the other submissions. The office is directed to set down the main appeal on its present record, within a period of 6 months."

3. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General entered appearance on behalf of Executive Engineer (appellant) and contended that factum of wilful absence and misbehaviour have not at all been adverted to by learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that procedural lapses should not have been given undue importance as no prejudice whatsoever was caused against the respondent.

4. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that glaring illegalities have been committed during the disciplinary proceedings by the Department which cannot be equated to that of "procedural lapses" as contended by learned . Assistant Advocate-General. It is worth-mentioning that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but amazing no show-cause notice was given as envisaged under section 3(2) of the Ordinance and besides that fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent to defend his case properly which is not only a flagrant violation of the provisions of the said Ordinance but well-recognized principles of natural justice and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. In view of above grave illegalities committed by the Department the learned Service Tribunal has rightly held that respondent-Department may initiate afresh action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The prescribed procedure which is mandatory in nature must be followed and it cannot be flouted on the pretext that the alleged charges against a Government employee are serious in nature.

' The judgment impugned being unexceptionable does not warrant interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.