KHURSHID ALAM Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, an Elementary English Teacher who challenged the major penalty of removal from service following departmental proceedings. The petitioner was proceeded against for joining at Government Primary School Mandianwala instead of his designated posting at Wahgray, despite having served at the former location for nearly ten years without complaint, drawing salary, and acting pursuant to directions from the competent authority. The core legal question considered by the court was whether a charge of misconduct could be sustained when the authorities raised no objection to the posting for a decade. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter requires detailed examination regarding the sustainability of the misconduct charge under such circumstances, thereby laying down principles concerning departmental proceedings, acquiescence, and the finality of long-standing administrative arrangements.
- Could the charge of misconduct be said to have been proved when neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the posting for a period of ten years?
- Does joining a school pursuant to a direction of the competent authority and serving there for a decade bar subsequent departmental proceedings for wrongful joining?
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioner who was serving as Elementary English Teacher was proceeded against departmentally which culminated in the award of major penalty of removal from service. The charge against him primarily was that he joined as E.E.T in Government Primary School Mandianwala, Tehsil Sharaqpur in February, 1997 although his posting was at Wahgray.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had joined the duty at Mandianwala pursuant to a direction issued by the competent authority; that he served there for almost ten years without any complaint whatsoever; that he drew salary against the said post and it was not tenable in law to proceed against him on the afore-referred ground. Adds that no senior official with whose consent he worked there was proceeded against on charges of misconduct.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, leave is granted, inter alia, to consider whether the charge of misconduct could have been said to have been proved notwithstanding the fact that for a period of ten years neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the said posting.
H.B.T./K-13/SC Leave grante