KHURSHID ALAM vs E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP and another
This matter arises from a petition filed by the petitioner, an Elementary English Teacher, who challenged the major penalty of removal from service imposed upon him following departmental proceedings. The primary charge against the petitioner was that he joined as an Elementary English Teacher at Government Primary School, Mandianwala, in February 1997, whereas his official posting was at Wahgray. The core legal question before the court was whether the charge of misconduct could be deemed established when the petitioner served at the disputed posting for nearly ten years without any objection from the competent authority or the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, and whether selective departmental action vitiates the penalty. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the aforesaid facts negated the proof of misconduct. The key principle laid down is that prolonged acquiescence by competent authorities in a posting without objection raises questions regarding the sustainability of a misconduct charge.
- Whether the charge of misconduct can be established when an employee works at a different posting for a prolonged period without objection from the competent authority?
- Does the absence of departmental objection over a period of ten years preclude disciplinary action for joining a post other than the one originally designated?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner who was serving as Elementary English Teacher was proceeded against departmentally which culminated in the award of major penalty' of removal from service. The charge against him primarily was that he joined as E.E.T. In Government Primary School. Mandianwala, Tehsil Sharqpur in February, 1997 although his posting was at Wahgray.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had joined the duty at Mandianwala pursuant to a direction issued by the competent authority; that he served there for almost ten years without any complaint whatsoever; that he drew salary against the said post and it was not tenable in law to proceed against him on the afore-referred ground. Adds that no senior official with whose consent he worked there was proceeded against on charges of misconduct.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, leave is granted, inter alia, to consider whether the charge of misconduct could have been said to have been proved notwithstanding the fact that for a period of ten years neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the said posting.