MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY), LAHORE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The petitioner contended that the charges leveled against him were vague and lacked specificity, particularly regarding alleged threats to local inhabitants. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that his mere implication in a criminal case under the Pakistan Penal Code did not constitute misconduct, especially since he was later cleared, and that his absence from duty was not wilful as it was supported by a medical certificate. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice was submitted only after the impugned disciplinary order had already been issued. The Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the material on record, including the nature of the petitioner's absence, and had even adopted a lenient view. Finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming that disciplinary findings based on the record will not be disturbed where the petitioner failed to timely respond to show-cause notices.
- Does the mere implication of a civil servant in a criminal case constitute misconduct per se?
- Can a civil servant challenge disciplinary findings on the basis of vague charges if they failed to respond to the show-cause notice in a timely manner?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding regarding the wilful nature of a civil servant's absence from duty subject to interference if based on the record?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 4-5-1982 on the ground that a civil servant, whenever is charge-sheeted, the charges must be clear and specific so that he should be in a position to -understand the same and repel them, if he can; that in the present case, it is submitted that the charge was absolutely vague and incomprehensive as it relates to the threats allegedly held out by the petitioner against the inhabitants of the locality where he was posted, but strangely enough, not a single person was named nor the source of such information was disclosed; that the mere implication or allegation of involvement in a criminal case, in itself is no ground for holding a civil servant, guilty of misconduct; that the petitioner was alleged to be named as an accused person in a case under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. The petitioner subsequently established his innocence and the report which was made against him was cancelled; that absence of the petitioner from duty was also not wilful as he had applied for leave on medical ground and his application was supported with a medical certificate and without holding an inquiry regarding the correctness or falsehood of the medical certificate the petitioner could not be held to have wilfully absented himself from duty.
2. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and can hardly agree with his line of arguments. The learned Tribunal hearing the parties, called for the record of the case wherein, it found that the petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice through an undated letter which was received in the S.P's office on 21-8-1980 i.e. On day after the impugned order was issued. The learned Tribunal, in spite of the material against the petitioner, was inclined to take a lenient view as regards his absence from duty it was considered wilful, and, therefore, his appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 4-5-1982. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.