FARZAND ALI, EXFOREST GUARD, BAHAWALPUR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOREST AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT and another
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 31-7-1985, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, formerly a Forest Guard, was issued a show-cause notice proposing minor penalties of withholding promotion and censure following a departmental inquiry. However, the Chief Conservator of Forests ultimately dismissed him from service through a consolidated order encompassing several unrelated cases against other officers. The core legal question concerns the legality of imposing a major penalty of dismissal when notice was given only for minor penalties, and the prejudice caused by a consolidated order. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the disproportionate penalty and consolidated order deserve consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, laying down that an employee cannot be awarded a major penalty without proper notice and that consolidated orders in disparate cases may cause legal prejudice.
- Whether an employee can be awarded a major penalty of dismissal when the show-cause notice proposed only minor penalties?
- Does the passing of a consolidated dismissal order involving multiple unrelated cases cause legal prejudice to a delinquent employee?
- Can the Service Tribunal sustain a penalty that exceeds the scope of the original show-cause notice?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 31-7-1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner which was directed against the order of his dismissal from service. Facts of the case briefly stated are as under: ' While petitioner was serving as Forest Guard, Bahawalpur in 1978, a charge-sheet was issued against him for being inefficient in his duties which led to a departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty on four charges of inefficiency, whereupon the Chief Conservator of Forests issued a second show-cause notice to petitioner as to why the following two penalties should not be imposed upon him: "(1) Withholding of promotion for a period of three years when due. (2) Censure."
2. ' Petitioner made a reply to the aforesaid notice which was however considered by the Chief Conservator of Forests along with several cases against other officers of the department with the result that he was dismissed from service.
3. ' Petitioner's departmental appeal against the order of his dismissal from service failed and he then filed an appeal to the Service Tribunal. This appeal was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, and it is in these circumstances that he filed this petition.
4. Mr. Taj Muhammad Langha, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the Service Tribunal has ignored the fact that whereas petitioner was given a show-cause notice for a minor penalty, he was on the other hand, awarded the maximum penalty of dismissal from service.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to notice that the learned Chief Conservator passed a consolidated order against the petitioner and several others which has caused serious prejudice to him, in that, the learned Officer was influenced by the facts of the other cases which were totally different from the case against the petitioner.
6. ' These and other points raised in support of the petition deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.
7. ' Appeal will be heard on present record at an early date. It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.