CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman Pakistan Railways against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially allowed the respondent's appeal and modified the major penalty of removal from service to a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year. The core legal question concerned the proportionality of the major penalty imposed on the respondent engineer, who was blamed for failing to submit an 'urgency certificate' regarding the repair of a railway bridge that later collapsed. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal was legally justified in modifying the penalty, noting that the respondent had taken steps for repairs, the bridge remained safe for a significant period after his transfer, and the only proved charge was a slight lapse concerning the urgency certificate. The Court laid down the principle that imposition of a major penalty for a minor or slight administrative lapse, where the inquiry reports do not establish grave misconduct or direct responsibility for the ultimate failure, does not warrant interference with the reduction of penalty by the Service Tribunal.
- Whether the competent authority is bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee?
- Is the imposition of a major penalty justified for a slight administrative lapse such as failing to submit an urgency certificate?
- Under what circumstances can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a departmental penalty imposed on a civil servant?
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---The respondent, Aftab Mehdi, was posted as Divisional Engineer, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, in the years 2004 and 2005. The railway bridge between Ran Pethani and Dhabeji Stations on Karachi-Kotri Section collapsed in the month of August, 2006. The Department initiated disciplinary action against the respondent for not taking appropriate timely action to protect the bridge and safeguard railway traffic. An inquiry committee was constituted and the respondent was charge sheeted. The inquiry committee in its report dated 21-4-2007 found the allegations not proved. The competent authority on 24-4-2007 ordered a fresh inquiry by another committee. The first inquiry committee exonerated the respondent of all the four charges whereas the second committee found only one, Charge No,1, proved, of abnormal delay by the respondent in processing the proposal for repairs of the bridge in question. The inquiry committee took note of the correspondence between respondent and the Headquarter regarding proposal made by the former regarding poor condition of the bridge and the necessity of its repair. The committee only blamed the respondent for not submitting "urgency certificate" to the Headquarter to indicate the urgency for carrying out the necessary repair works. On the other three charges the committee held that the respondent was not guilty of not taking appropriate action to protect the bridge or arranging for the required repairs to prevent aggravation of the condition of the foundations. The committee found that the respondent had adequate knowledge of hydrological and hydraulic parameters of the bridges and the engineering knowledge and skill. Notwithstanding such findings, the competent authority after issuing show cause notice to the respondent imposed upon him the major penalty of removal from service. He appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was partially allowed and his penalty was modified to a minor one of stoppage of one increment for one year. He was ordered to be reinstated in service. The Chairman Pakistan Railways has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who contended that the respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all the railways bridges within his jurisdiction; that the bridge in question collapsed due to his failure to carry out timely necessary repairs. He contended that, notwithstanding the lenient view taken by the inquiry committee, the Competent Authority, after providing hearing to the respondent was satisfied about the gravity of his misconduct and thus awarded him major penalty. That the Competent Authority was not obliged to accept the recommendations of the inquiry committee.
3. We perused both the inquiry reports and have found that the respondent did submit proposals to the Headquarter for carrying out repair of the bridge and it was the Headquarter which was, to a great extent, responsible for delay in approving the proposal due to making unnecessary queries.
The reports further show that the respondent did make temporary repairs of the bridge. Further that the bridge remained safe for train operation during the respondent's posting as Divisional Engineer, Karachi for 12 months and even 17 months after he was transferred out. The only charge found proved by the second committee was the respondent's failure to submit "urgency certificate" to the Headquarter while making the proposal for repair of the bridge. We fail to understand the imposition of major penalty on the respondent for such a slight lapse. The Service Tribunal was, therefore, legally justified in modifying the penalty to stoppage of one increment. Neither we find any legal flaw in the impugned judgment nor has any question of public importance been raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.