MANSOOR AHMAD SHEIKH vs A.I.-G. DEVELOPMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The department had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for unauthorized absence from duty for 173 days and tampering with the official attendance register. Despite receiving a charge-sheet, the petitioner failed to submit a reply or appear before the Inquiry Officer, leading to an ex parte inquiry where he was found guilty. Following a show-cause notice and personal hearing, he was dismissed from service. The Supreme Court examined the record and affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunity to defend himself but chose not to participate. The Court held that where a civil servant deliberately avoids participating in disciplinary proceedings despite notice, the department is justified in proceeding ex parte. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that no question of law of general public importance, as required under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, was involved to warrant granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Can a civil servant challenge a dismissal order if they failed to participate in the departmental inquiry?
- Is an ex parte inquiry valid if the accused fails to respond to a charge-sheet?
- What constitutes a question of law of general public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Efficiency and Discipline Rules
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 4-2-2000, passed in Appeal No,2192 of 1998.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk in the Office of the D.I.-G. (C.I.D.) Punjab and Department proceeded against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules on the charges that he while serving in Telecommunication Department remained absent from duty for a period of 173 days from 1-3-1995 to 20-8-1995 and D.S.P. Tele (HQ), Punjab, Lahore had reported that he was also in the habit of tampering attendance register to cover up his absence. He was issued a charge-sheet on 3-10-1996. The petitioner received the charge-sheet but unfortunately he did not care to reply to the charge-sheet and also failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, who proceeded against him ex parte. Inquiry Officer in his report found him guilty of the charges. The Competent Authority issued show-cause notice to him. After providing an opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed from service on the ground that his absence with effect from 1-3-1995 to 20-8-1995 was duly proved and it was also established against him that he had also remained absent from his duty for a very long period in the year 1997 and that he was in a habit of tampering with official record..
3. The petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Authority, which was dismissed, vide order, dated 15-10-1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of his appeal, he approached the leaped Tribunal by way of filing appeal. The Department 'contested the appeal of the petitioner and filed parawise comments as well as produced entire record before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal after examining/analyzing the available record and hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Mian Mahmood Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Competent Authority is not sustainable in law and the charges against the petitioner were not proved; that the Department proceeded ex parte against him and that the Tribunal without applying his judicial mind, dismissed the appeal, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and very carefully gone through the record. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not borne out from the record. The Department issued charge-sheet and appointed Inquiry Officer but the petitioner did not reply to the charge-sheet and even did not contest his case before the Inquiry Officer who had no other option but to proceed ex parte against him. In the absence of any defence on record the allegations of the Department were duly proved against him. The learned Tribunal with sound and cogent reasons rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
7. The impugned judgment is entirely in consonance with the law-laid down by this Court. It would be pertinent to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "(7) The appellant was 'served with the charge-sheet dated 2-10-1996 (Annexure "A") on the following day i,e, 3-10-1996 and he appended his signatures as acknowledgment of the receipt of the charge-sheet. He however, failed to submit his reply within the stipulated period. Consequently, the inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Rasheed Ahmad Tabbasam, D.S.P. But on account of his transfer, the inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Younas, D.S.P. Telecommunication. Mr. Muhammad Younas, D.S.P. Had summoned the appellant but he designedly failed to appear before him and join the inquiry. He, therefore, examined the record and found that he was in a habit of remaining absent and had also remained absent particularly in January, February, March, June and July, 1997.
He was however, afforded personal hearing by Mian Muhammad Asif, A.I.-G. (Development), Telecommunication, Punjab on 1-10-1997. He had dealt with the case in sufficient detail and after examining the record had come to the conclusion that the appellant had remained absent for 173 days w,e,f, 1-3-1995 to 20-8-1995 and was also in habit of tampering with the Attendance Register to cover up his absence. In the Appellate order, the I.-G.P. Has also clearly mentioned that according to record, he was absent from duty w,e,f, 1-3-1995 to 20-8-1995 and also absented for about two years after the receipt of charge-sheet."
8: There is no substance in the petition. Moreover, no question o law of general public importance, as contemplated under Article 212(3) B of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is involved in this petition.
9. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed and leave declined.