SHAFI MUHAMMAD SAND Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the Sindh Service Tribunal upholding the recovery of financial loss from the petitioner's pension after retirement. The core legal question is whether a minor penalty of financial recovery can be imposed on a retired civil servant without affording an opportunity of hearing and a proper inquiry, particularly when the initial reinstatement order made no mention of such a penalty and subsequent statutory changes occurred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and converted the petition into an appeal, observing prima facie that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The key principle laid down is that adverse administrative actions affecting vested pensionary rights and imposing financial penalties cannot be sustained without due notice, a proper inquiry under the applicable rules, and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
- Can a minor penalty of financial recovery be imposed on a retired civil servant without a proper inquiry and due notice?
- Whether an administrative order affecting pensionary rights can be sustained when the affected person is condemned unheard?
- Does the replacement of departmental rules by a new statutory ordinance affect pending or past disciplinary proceedings?
- Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- Mr. Ansari Abdul Latif, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him which was never challenged before any forum. However, he filed a review petition before the then Chief Minister, Sindh and per the summary he was reinstated with minor penalty being imposed upon him. However, per the order of reinstatement issued by the Government of Sindh there is no mention of any minor penalty at all. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service but surprisingly thereafter the Government of Sindh passed an order imposing a minor penalty upon the petitioner being recovery of the loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.11,31,916 from his pension/commutation. Thereafter the petitioner filed a departmental appeal without any success and then approached the learned Sindh Service Tribunal with the same result. Hence this. petition.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that according to the petitioner's reinstatement order dated 5-9-1997, there is no mention of any minor penalty and hence the same cannot be imposed without due notice to the petitioner and a proper inquiry under the rules. Additionally, the Sindh Government E&D Rules were replaced by the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 on 30-8-2000. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to be proceeded against under the said rules which exercise has yet not taken place.
3. We have learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the impugned judgment.
4. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner was condemned un heard. Hence we would, while granting leave, convert this petition into an, appeal. To be listed in due course.
M.B.A./S-50/SC Order accordingly.