Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore vs Muhammad Ali Saqib
This civil appeal by the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's dismissal from service was set aside and he was reinstated. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of dismissal from service could be sustained solely on the ground that the employee failed to participate in the inquiry proceedings, without the prosecution proving the allegations through evidence. The Supreme Court held that an order of dismissal cannot be passed merely because an employee did not join the inquiry proceedings, and that the prosecution remains under a legal duty to prove the charges through proper evidence. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, establishing that departmental authorities must independently scrutinize evidence rather than blindly rely on inquiry recommendations when allegations are unproven.
- Can an order of dismissal from service be passed solely on the ground that the employee failed to join the inquiry proceedings?
- Is it incumbent upon the prosecution to prove allegations through evidence even if the accused employee does not participate in the inquiry?
- Whether departmental authorities are required to independently scrutinize available evidence rather than solely relying on the recommendations of an Inquiry Officer?
- Section 13(4), Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this appeal with the leave of the Court, the judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore has been challenged whereby Appeal No. 3736 of 2010 filed by the respondent was accepted and he was reinstated into service.
2. Leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2020, same is reproduced:- "The learned Assistant Advocate General contends that the show cause notices were sent at the proper address of the respondent i:e. Govt. Girls High School, 152/G.B. Chiniot, District Jhang as such address is appearing in the letter dated 9.4.2009 seeking submission of written defence and also in the letter dated 4.5.2010 by which show cause notice/personal hearing notice under section 13(4) of PEEDA Act, 2006 was issued to the respondent. Learned AAG contends that the Tribunal in the impugned order has altogether gone on a wrong assumption and perhaps may have read the address as "Headmaster (BS-17), Govt, High School 128/JB, District Chiniot" as the address mentioned at serial No.1 while the name of the respondent is mentioned at serial No.3 with the proper address.
2. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the submission. The appeal shall be heard on the available record but the parties are allowed to file additional documents within a period of one month. As the matter pertains to service, Office is directed to fix the appeal expeditiously preferably immediately after three months.
Operation of the impugned order is suspended."
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab argues that notice of personal hearing as well as the Show Cause Notice was sent on the correct address. Further that the order passed by the competent authority dated 9.6.2010 awarding the penalty of dismissal from service was in accordance with the record available on the file against the respondent and the order of Chief Secretary, Punjab dated 22.09.2010 while rejecting the appeal of the respondent was in accordance with law. The learned Service Tribunal erred in law while setting aside the said orders and reinstating the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated the even if the fact that on the correct address the correspondence with regard to the matter in issue was made by the present appellant even then the Inquiry Officer was required to conclude his opinion on the basis of the evidence, the statements of prosecution witnesses and record against the respondent. Further argues it cannot be a ground to conclude against the respondent on the basis that he failed to participate in the inquiry proceedings and a major penalty of dismissal from service was recommended against him. The learned Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that by scrutiny of prosecution evidence it is found that nothing with regard to the involvement of the present respondent was in the statement of the witnesses and that even the role of respondent was not specifically attributed in the charge sheet.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
6. The orders of the competent authority as well as departmental appeal are on the basis that they agreed with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer. They have not scrutinized the evidence available on the file themselves, but relying upon the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and ignoring that no specific allegation through evidence was A proved against the respondent, despite that major penalty of dismissal from service was awarded. Needless to observe that it was the duty of prosecution to prove the allegations for which the respondent was charge sheeted. An order of dismissal from service cannot be passed only on the ground that respondent has not joined the inquiry proceedings,. We agree with the learned Service Tribunal whereby appeal filed by the respondent was accepted through the impugned judgment and order of reinstatement was passed in his favour. No case for interference by this Court is made out. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed.