ABDUL HAMID Versus SIND SERVICE TRIBUNAL
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a former Property Clerk. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules after the loss of firearms and ammunition from his custody. An inquiry established charges of gross negligence and inefficiency, leading to his compulsory retirement. On appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner raised legal objections, contending that gross negligence was not punishable as misconduct under the rules and that receiving a show-cause notice for dismissal but being awarded compulsory retirement prejudiced his defence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that inefficiency is an independent ground for punishment under Rule 3, and gross negligence constituted misconduct under Rule 2(4) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court further held that where a civil servant is put on notice for a higher major penalty (dismissal), awarding a lesser major penalty (compulsory retirement) causes no prejudice.
- Whether gross negligence can constitute misconduct under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can a civil servant who is issued a notice for the major penalty of dismissal be lawfully awarded the lesser major penalty of compulsory retirement without prejudice to his defence?
- Is inefficiency an independent statutory ground for imposing penalties under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Rule 2(4), Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
- Rule 3, Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
- Rule 4(b), Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7‑7‑1985 of the Sind Service Tribunal; whereby petitioner's appeal against order of his compulsory retirement, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was a Property Clerk of District Court Larkana when he was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for the loss of two revolvers, two pistols and ammunitions kept in the property room and which were in his custody. The charge of gross negligence and inefficiency having been established against him after duly held inquiry by an Additional District Judge, the District Judge, Larkana, found the petitioner guilty and directed his compulsory retirement by order, dated 5‑8‑1980. He filed a departmental appeal against this order which was rejected by the Chief Justice of the Sind High Court on 20th October, 1984. He then filed a service appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal which having been dismissed by the impugned order, he has sought leave to appeal.
3. The defence of the petitioner during the proceedings against him was two‑fold: One, that there was considerable in‑flow of articles in the Property Room which had created a mess, therefore, it was possible that some property might have been lost; and secondly, that on one occasion the key of the Property Room was given to another State functionary under the orders of a Court and a possibility of pilferage during that time could not be excluded. Both these pleas were examined by the learned Members of the Tribunal and were repelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now raised two legal points: One, that according to the charge‑sheet the petitioner was accused of gross negligence while the proceedings conducted against him indicated a charge of misconduct. Not only this, he further urged that gross negligence according to the rules was not actionable for awarding any punishment. Secondly, he contended that although the petitioner was put on notice for dismissal from service yet he has been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement, therefore, his defence has been prejudiced.
5. According to the charge‑sheet and inquiry proceedings the petitioner was put on a clear notice that he was guilty of gross negligence and inefficiency. Inefficiency is an independent ground for punishment under Rule 3 of The Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, while gross negligence can, in the circumstances of this case, be considered as misconduct as defined in sub‑clause (4) of Rule 2 of the said Rules. The petitioner had notice that he was being accused of misconduct including gross negligence and inefficiency. He has not at all been prejudiced. Therefore, there is no force in the first contention.
6. Regarding the second contention which seems to be extraordinary suffice it to observe that the petitioner was put on notice for punishment of dismissal while he had been awarded lesser punishment of compulsory retirement. Both these punishments are included in the list of major penalties contained in sub‑clause (b) of Rule 4 of the said Rules. The petitioner has been benefited by the impugned action in getting away with a lesser penalty, he should not have any grievance. When he was given a notice for a higher major penalty he could have been awarded any of the lesser major penalties as defined in the Rules. Therefore, there is no force in the second contention either.
7. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
8. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.