ABDUL KARIM BURINO vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
This appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had upheld a penalty of withholding two years' increments imposed on the appellant by the respondents. The core legal question concerned the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, specifically whether the respondents complied with a prior remand order from the Federal Service Tribunal requiring de novo proceedings to be completed within a four-month timeframe. The appellant contended that the respondents failed to initiate or complete the proceedings within the stipulated period, while the respondents alleged the delay was due to the appellant's non-cooperative attitude, a claim they failed to substantiate with evidence. The Supreme Court, noting the failure to adhere to the previous remand directions, set aside the impugned order. The Court held that the disciplinary process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law and directed the respondents to conduct de novo proceedings within a fixed period of three months, requiring the appellant to appear before the Inquiry Officer on a specified date to ensure the matter is resolved properly.
- Can a disciplinary authority impose a penalty after failing to comply with a tribunal's remand order to conduct de novo proceedings within a specified timeframe?
- Is a respondent required to substantiate allegations of non-cooperation by an appellant regarding delays in disciplinary proceedings?
ORDER
1. This appeal with leave of Court has been directed against order dated 26-11-2009 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench whereby the learned Service Tribunal withheld two years' increment of the, appellant.
2. ' From the perusal of the record, it appears that vide order dated 28-2-2006 the learned Federal.
3. Service Tribunal remanded the matters for de novo proceedings, but the respondents instead of holding de novo proceedings passed ex parte order whereby penalty of withholding of increment of two years passed by the respondent was upheld.
4. ' It is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the learned Federal Service Tribunal while ordering of the de novo proceedings directed the respondent to complete the proceedings within a period of 4 months from the date of the order i.e, 28-2-2006 but neither the proceedings were completed within four months nor show cause was issued within the stipulated period of time.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan learned Advocate for the respondents argued that the delay in completion of proceeding was caused due to non-cooperative attitude of the appellant.
6. However, he has failed to substantiate his contention by referring any document on record.
7. Both the learned counsel after arguing at length, stated that the B impugned judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal may be set I aside and respondents will hold de novo proceedings which will be completed within 3 months from the date of this order. The respondent will appear before the Inquiry Officer on 20-9-2010, who after recording the evidence will pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
8. ' For the foregoing reason listed appeal is allowed, impugned order, dated 26-11-2009 is set aside.
9. Respondent is directed to complete the `de novo proceedings as per show-cause notice within three months from the date of order. The appellant will appear before the Inquiry Officer on 20-9- 2010.