THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), N.W.F.P.PESHAWAR and another vs GHULAM MURTAZA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from government service. The respondent had been convicted by a Summary Military Court, leading to his initial dismissal. Although Martial Law authorities subsequently reduced the sentence and withdrew the dismissal order, the employer department initiated independent departmental action, dismissing the respondent under Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, without conducting a formal inquiry. The Service Tribunal held that a formal inquiry process was mandatory despite the prior conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, permits dismissal from service based on a conviction without following the procedure of a detailed inquiry. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record and heard alongside related matters to determine the scope of departmental disciplinary procedures following criminal convictions.
- Does Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, permit the dismissal of a government servant based on a conviction without conducting a formal inquiry?
- Is a formal departmental inquiry mandatory before dismissing a government servant who has been convicted by a Summary Military Court?
- Rule 8, N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, of respondent's appeal against his dismissal from service.
2. ' The respondent was convicted by the Summary Military Court for such an offence which when established would undoubtedly rendered him to disciplinary action, ending in dismissal from service. But the Martial Law Authorities, on his representation, reduced the sentence and withdrew the order of his dismissal from service. This, however, did not end the matter. The respondent's employer department, namely, the petitioners herein took independent departmental action against him and acted under Rule 8 without holding any further inquiry and dismissed him basing the order on his conviction that he had been convicted by a Court of law and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. On appeal, the Tribunal held the view that even in such like cases inquiry process was necessary which was dispensed with by the petitioners. Accordingly appeal was allowed.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, relied upon from the petitioners' side did permit the action impugned before the Tribunal, without following the procedure of detailed inquiry. He also relied upon the leave granting order passed on 11th December, 1988 in C.P. No, 182-P of 1987. These and other submissions require examination.
4. ' Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
5. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction for filing all necessary documents. Both the appeals shall be heard together.