NAZIR AHMAD vs THE PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the petitioner's second removal from service following a remand. The core legal questions involve the applicability of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and the entitlement of a civil servant to back-benefits and salary for the period between an initial unlawful removal and subsequent reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that no prejudice was shown regarding the choice of disciplinary rules, but found merit in the claim for salary for the intervening period of unemployment following an invalidated removal order, relying on established precedent. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted limited to the question of back salary.
- Whether a civil servant is entitled to salary for the period between an initial removal from service and subsequent reinstatement when the removal order is found invalid?
- Does the application of allegedly incorrect disciplinary rules vitiate departmental proceedings if no prejudice is shown?
- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J --The petitioner was removed from service on 17-5-1980. However, on appeal to the Service Tribunal. The order of removal was set aside on account of the legal defects in the procedure adopted by the departmental authorities and the case remanded to the Authorised Officer i.e. The Chief Engineer for undertaking fresh proceedings, if so advised, by the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 22-3-1982.
2. The petitioner was thereafter re-instated on 13-5-1982. However, as a result of the fresh proceedings taken, he was again removed from service vide order, dated 28-7-1982.
3. The last mentioned order was again challenged before the Service Tribunal, through an appeal, but on this occasion the appeal failed and the order of removal was upheld vide order, dated 5-1-1984.
4. Hence this petition for leave.
5. Two grounds have been pressed before us in support of this petition: (a) that the order of removal was bad in so far as the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, which were applied to his case, were not applicable to him; and (b) that he was, at least entitled to the salary for the period from 17-5-1980, when he was first removed from service until 13-5-1982, when he re- instated after the order of removal (dated 17 5 1980) passed against him was found to be invalid.
6. There is no force in the first ground. It has not been shown how the application of the disciplinary rules of 1975 assuming that they were not, indeed, applicable and that the earlier rules of 1960 were applicable to the case of the petitioner, has prejudiced his case.
7. However, there is some force in the second ground, namely, that the petitioner was entitled to the salary for the period between 17-5-1980, the date of his removal and 13-5-1982 when he was re- instated on the principles enunciated by this Court in Mrs. Isaac's case PLD 1970 SC 415.
8. We would grant leave for consideration of the second contention only.
9. Security Rs.1,000.
10. The appeal arising out of this petition shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.
11. Interim order, dated 1-2-1984 to continue meanwhile.