Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding a penalty imposed by the Competent Authority. The core legal question concerned the validity and consequential permanent impact of a disciplinary penalty of withholding of one increment for one year, initiated nine years after the alleged misconduct of making an unauthorized ad hoc appointment in January 1996. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it by setting aside the penalty of withholding an increment and substituting it with 'Censure'. The Court held that an inordinate delay of nine years by the authorities in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately caused a permanent reduction in the retiring employee's pensionary benefits due to timing of retirement, warrants rectification in the interest of justice. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated promptly, and punishments whose temporal effects outlast an employee's service due to administrative delays resulting in permanent pensionary loss require judicial intervention.
- Whether an inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause a minor penalty to result in permanent loss of pensionary benefits?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal?
- Whether the penalty of withholding an increment can be substituted with censure under the circumstances of undue administrative delay?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Through a charge-sheet, dated 10-1-2005 issued on 3-2-2005, the petitioner was accused of having appointed Mushtaq Ahmad as a Stenographer on ad hoc basis for a period of six months which he was not empowered to do. This allegedly illegal appointment had been made by the petitioner on 1-1-1996. An Inquiry Officer appears to have found him guilty of the charge and it was through an order, dated 1-8-2005 that the Competent Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year. The representation filed by the petitioner remained unsuccessful which led him to the Punjab Service Tribunal where the appeal filed by him met no better fate.
2. Hence this petition.
3. As has been noticed above, the alleged misconduct had been committed by the petitioner in the month of January, 1996 and it was after a period of nine years that the Competent Authority woke up to commence proceedings against the petitioner on the said charge and as has been further noticed above, these proceedings culminated in imposition of the impugned punishment in the month of August, 2005 which punishment was to last only for one year i,e, till August, 2006 while the petitioner was to retire in May, 2006.
4. As would be apparent from the awarded punishment, the same was to last only for one year whereafter the increments were expected to revive and the impugned penalty was not meant to cause any consequences of a permanent nature. But unfortunately for the petitioner, in his case this punishment has resulted in a permanent loss to him in the matter of his pensionary benefits.
On account of the punishment in question, the increment which was to accrue to the petitioner in December, 2005, was withheld. This would have got restored in December, 2006 but as has been noticed above, the petitioner retired in May, 2006 and the pay which he was receiving then was minus the increment which meant that the last pay drawn by him for the purpose of calculating the pension etc. Was less than what he would have been drawing if the Competent Authority had not delayed the impugned action for nine long years. The result is that the impugned punishment, though not intended to cause any harm beyond one year, had caused a permanent loss in pensionary benefits and that also for no fault of the petitioner.
5. Dictates of justice demand rectification of this unjust situation.
6. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal which is partly allowed as a result whereof the impugned punishment awarded to the appellant is set aside and instead a punishment of "Censure" is imposed on him. There shall be no order as to costs.