EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD, etc. vs EJAZ AHMAD
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the respondent, an employee dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings for inefficiency and misconduct, was reinstated. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the dismissal despite findings regarding the employee's absence and misbehavior. The Supreme Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings, initiated under the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, suffered from glaring illegalities, notably the failure to issue a mandatory show-cause notice under Section 3(2) of the Ordinance and the denial of a fair opportunity of hearing. The Court held that such omissions amount to flagrant violations of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, vitiating the entire proceedings, and cannot be dismissed as mere procedural lapses. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that mandatory prescribed procedures must be strictly followed regardless of the severity of the charges, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit while allowing fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
- Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice under Section 3(2) of the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can mandatory statutory procedures in disciplinary actions against government employees be flouted on the ground that the alleged charges are serious in nature?
- Whether the omission to afford a fair opportunity of hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice sufficient to set aside a departmental dismissal?
- Section 3(2), Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
Javed Iqbal, ACJ.--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 herein below for ready reference:-- "Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate General, Punjab submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal had mis-directed 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 cilia 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 willful 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.