GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI 'and others vs RAFIQUE AHMED AGHA
This petition arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal dated 30-12-2006 passed in Appeal No. 40 of 2000, whereby the respondent's dismissal from service under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was set aside and he was reinstated without back-benefits. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal ignored material aspects of the Inquiry Committee's report regarding the respondent's alleged negligence in allowing illegal removal of wheat, and whether the joint inquiry conducted against multiple officers involving an officer in BPS-18 was properly referred to the competent Authorized Officer. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, holding that the contentions require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that findings of a service tribunal exonerating a civil servant must take into account all material parts of an inquiry report and relevant procedural aspects of joint inquiries against officers of different basic pay scales.
- Whether the Service Tribunal can set aside a penalty of dismissal by ignoring material portions of an inquiry report?
- Does a joint inquiry involving officers of different basic pay scales affect the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Whether negligence and careless conduct leading to the illegal removal of store items warrant the penalty of dismissal from service?
- Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal dated 30-12-2006 in Appeal No,40 of 2000 whereby penalty of dismissal awarded to the petitioner under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, from service was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated without back-benefits.
2. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh submitted that the Service Tribunal exonerated the respondent of the charges levelled against him and set aside penalty, of dismissal by ignoring very material and important factual and legal aspects of the case and the judgment suffers from grave illegality. He pointed out that the Tribunal has ignored material portion of the report of the Inquiry Committee and referred to paragraph 29 of the report and submitted that after perusal it would be sufficiently clear that respondent Agha Rafique Ahmad had acted in negligent and careless manner and had allowed illegal removal of the wheat from the store which was in his charge. His second submission was that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the fact that inquiry was conducted jointly against four officers, one of which namely Ghulam Nabi, was an Officer in BPS-18 and in respect of Officer of BPS-18 of the relevant department acts as an Authorized Officer. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Secretary in a capacity as Authorized Officer, who was also authority in respect of the other three Officers including respondent Agha Rafique Ahmad.
3. On consideration of the above arguments, it is observed that both the contentions require consideration. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to consider, amongst others, the above question.