MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs WAPDA through Chairman and others
This petition arises from a service matter where the petitioner, a Research Officer in WAPDA, was compulsorily retired after being found guilty of willful absence from duty and presenting a forged medical certificate. His departmental appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the validity of imposing a major penalty for a serious charge like forging a medical certificate without holding a regular factual inquiry and without examining the defence evidence produced by the employee. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the finding and penalty regarding willful absence from duty since the petitioner attained superannuation and did not press it, but set aside the finding regarding the presentation of bogus medical certificates due to the absence of a regular factual inquiry. The key principle laid down is that serious charges involving allegations of forgery and fabrication require a proper factual inquiry and consideration of defence evidence before a major penalty can be sustained.
- Whether a major penalty for forgery can be imposed without holding a regular factual inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding willful absence from duty?
- Whether failure to examine medical certificates produced in defence vitiates a finding of guilt regarding bogus documents?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner while serving as Research Officer, Dams Safety Organization WAPDA was proceeded against on charges of wilful absence from duty and presenting forged medical certificate. The inquiry led to imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 13-4-2004. The appeal before the service Tribunal stands dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded major penalty without regular inquiry; that although the medical board constituted on 26-9-2003 did not find the petitioner to be suffering from any significant illness but his absence from duty was of an earlier date when he was sick; that petitioner has placed on record the medical certificate of the concerned Hospital to show that he remained under treatment in the said Hospital and that the Medical Superintendent, Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot, who was sent the certificate for verification, gave the opinion without looking at the record; that in absence of regular inquiry, petitioner ,had no occasion to tender the afore-referred certificate or to confront the said MS. He further added towards the end that he accepted the compulsory retirement since he has already attained the age of superannuation but he takes exception to the finding rendered that the medical certificate submitted by him was forged. Adds that he would be satisfied, if the major penalty of charge of willful absence from duty is maintained but the latter charge i,e, his presenting forged certificate is set aside.
3. On the last date of hearing, we had directed the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan to get in touch with respondent WAPDA and find out as to why regular inquiry was not held and why the record of the concerned medical hospitals produced by the petitioner before the competent authority in the department was not considered while imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement on charges of willful absence and for producing bogus certificates.
4. Having sought instructions learned Law Officer submits that the respondent Authority has informed her that the petitioner's appeal remained pending before the Service Tribunal for a period of six years from 2004 to 2010 and he had ample opportunity to move Department for making a prayer for regular inquiry or to have the matter of the medical certificates inquired into but this was not done which indicates that he accepted the findings of the competent authority qua the afore- referred charges.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer at some length, so far as the question of willful absence from duty is concerned, we would not like to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the competent authority and concurred by the Service Tribunal.
However, on the second charge i,e, production of bogus medical certificates, we are of the view that petitioner had specifically averred in Para 9, sub-Para (iii) of memo. Of appeal before the Service Tribunal that he had tendered five medical certificates issued by the medical officer of the government hospitals, duly countersigned by the medical superintendent but these documents were never examined or inquired into. The Para reads as under:-- "5 Medical certificates issued by Medical officers of Government Hospital duly countersigned by the Medical Superintendent were submitted to the office which was re-verified. Fitness certificate was accepted by the office but neither the leave in extension was sanctioned nor was appellant kept informed of the rejection of his request for leave."
6. The learned Service Tribunal did not advert to the afore-referred ground and proceeded to dismiss the appeal without realizing that not only this plea was specifically raised but also the fact that the charge that he tendered bogus certificates required factual inquiry which in the instant case admittedly was not held. In the afore-referred circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and partly allow the same i,e, the finding with regard to the charge of willful absence from duty and the penalty of compulsory retirement shall remain intact. However, the finding with regard to tendering of bogus medical certificates is set aside. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. The respondent WAPDA is directed to release all the dues to which he may be entitled within 30 days of the receipt of this order.