Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning his claim to seniority over respondents. The petitioner, a Temporary Engineer initially appointed in 1955 and later inducted into P.S.E. Class II, contended that his promotion case was wrongfully withheld from the Public Service Commission on account of a pending inquiry that ultimately resulted only in a minor penalty, whereas a minor penalty did not bar promotion according to government policy circulars. The core legal question is whether a government servant's promotion can be withheld and their seniority bypassed due to pending disciplinary proceedings that eventuate in a minor penalty. The Supreme Court held that in view of the applicable circular dated 7-1-1969, which provides that a minor penalty inquiry may be ignored for withholding promotion, the authorities were not justified in withholding the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
- Whether a pending disciplinary inquiry resulting in a minor penalty justifies withholding a civil servant's promotion?
- Can the denial of promotion during the pendency of departmental proceedings affect a government servant's claimed seniority?
- Does a circular governing promotion during disciplinary proceedings override departmental discretion regarding the forwarding of cases to the Public Service Commission?
- Rule 6(ii), West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1960
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner was appointed as Temporary Engineer by direct recruitment on the recommendation of the then West Pakistan Public Service Commission, with effect from 18-8-1955. On the promulgation of 1967 Service Rules P.S.E. Class II he was inducted into class II with effect from 1-7-1963. He was removed from service or. 4-5-1971. This order was successfully challenged by him and the same was set aside by this Court and he was re-instated in service on 10-8-1973. Two enquires were pending against him which ultimately concluded in the year 1970. He was exonerated in one and awarded a minor punishment in the other. In the meanwhile, the case of promotion of respondents Nos.2 to 37 was considered and they were promoted on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was promoted in the year 1973. He claimed seniority on the ground, inter alia, that his case was illegally not forwarded to the Public Service Commission when respondents Nos. 2 to 37 were promoted on the ground that he had been awarded punishment. However, a minor penalty was no bar to his being considered for promotion. According to him, he was eligible to rank senior to the respondents despite the fact that he was promoted later.
2. The above claim of the petitioner was not accepted and his representations to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, C & W Department were rejected. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but this was also dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. A. Waheed Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew our attention to Circular No. SOIV (S&GAD)-i-75/67 (Policy), dated 7-1-1969 issued by the Government of West Pakistan on the subject of "promotion of an officer to a higher post during the pendency of investigation regarding alleged corruption and disciplinary proceedings" particularly to para. 2(c) thereof, which provides:- "2. The nature of allegations against a Government Servant may be taken into consideration for deciding suitability for promotion to the higher rank, if the case against him has reached the following stages:- (a)------------------ (b)------------------
(c) If the Appointing Authority has passed an order under rule 6 (ii) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, that formal enquiry should be held and has decided that the allegations, If established would call for a major penalty.
4. If the authority is of the view that the allegations, If established, would call for a minor penalty, then such an enquiry may be ignored for the purpose of withholding of promotion of a person, who is otherwise suitable for it."
5. The contention raised is that in view of the principle contained in the above provision of the Circular, the Government of the Punjab was not justified in withholding the case of the petitioner from the Public Service Commission when it was considering the case of the respondents for promotion.
6. Mr. M. Saeed Beg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General at our request could not give any convincing reply to this contention.
7. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
8. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing as early as possible.