EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD Versus EJAZ AHMAD
This appeal was filed by the Executive Engineer, Qadirabad Barrage Division, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, Ejaz Ahmad, following his dismissal from service due to alleged inefficiency and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department were legally valid despite procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to issue a show-cause notice and provide a fair opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by glaring illegalities. The Court emphasized that the failure to issue a show-cause notice as mandated by the governing statute and the denial of a fair opportunity to defend oneself constituted a flagrant violation of both the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed that mandatory procedural requirements cannot be bypassed, even when serious charges are alleged against a government employee, and upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the Department to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law.
- Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings be excused on the grounds that the charges against a government employee are serious?
- Is the right to a fair opportunity of hearing a mandatory requirement in disciplinary proceedings against a government servant?
- Section 3(2), Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
JAVED IQBAL, ACTG. C.J.--- Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated on account of inefficiency and misconduct, the respondent was dismissed from service but reinstated by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of judgment impugned, hence this appeal.
2. Leave to appeal was granted vide order, dated 17-11-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--
"Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal had misdirected itself in reinstating the respondent in service by the impugned judgment, dated 26-7-2005 after it had found that he had not carried out the repair work and had been absent from duty and rude to his superiors.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia the above and the other submissions. The office is directed to set down the main appeal on its present record, within a period of 6 months."
3. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General entered appearance on behalf of Executive Engineer (appellant) and contended that factum of wilful absence and misbehaviour have not at all been adverted to by learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that procedural lapses should not have been given undue importance as no prejudice whatsoever was caused against the respondent.
4. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that glaring illegalities have been committed during the disciplinary proceedings by the Department which cannot be equated to that of "procedural lapses" as contended by learned Assistant Advocate-General. It is worth-mentioning that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but amazing no show-cause notice was given as envisaged under section 3(2) of the Ordinance and besides that fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent to defend his case properly which is not only a flagrant violation of the provisions of the said Ordinance but well-recognized principles of natural justice and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. In view of above grave illegalities committed by the Department the learned Service Tribunal has rightly held that respondent-Department may initiate afresh action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The prescribed procedure which is mandatory in nature must be followed and it cannot be flouted on the pretext that the alleged charges against a Government employee are serious in nature.
The judgment impugned being unexceptionable does not warrant interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
M.H./E-2/SC Appeal dismissed.