Dr.Capt. MUNAWAR TAHIR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Health Department, Civil Secretariat and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a Medical Officer, following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, who was charged with failing to attend to a female convict who subsequently died, contended that the inquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte without proper notice to him. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's reliance on an inquest report prepared by a Magistrate. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had correctly determined that the petitioner had no justification to avoid the inquiry proceedings and that the inquiry officer was not biased. The Court further noted that the Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the inquiry report after a thorough consideration of the petitioner's defense, rather than solely on the Magistrate's inquest report. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's contentions and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner for his professional negligence.
- Can a public servant challenge disciplinary proceedings on the ground of lack of notice if they deliberately absented themselves from the inquiry?
- Is a Service Tribunal's decision vitiated if it considers an inquest report alongside an inquiry report in a disciplinary matter?
- Does the failure of a medical officer to attend to a patient in custody constitute sufficient grounds for compulsory retirement?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was posted as Medical Officer, New Central Jail, Multan. On 23-4-1982, a female convict Mst.Martha suddenly fell ill and remained unconscious from 5 p.m. To 10 p.m. When she expired. The petitioner was informed about her condition but he failed to attend her. Consequently, he was served with a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. As a result of these proceedings, he was compulsorily retired from service. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the inquiry officer completed the proceedings without notice to him and at his back. This contention - was also raised before the Tribunal but was rejected with the following observations:- "The perusal of the said report shows that the Enquiry Officer was not inimical against the appellant, the appellant had no justification to show lack of trust in him and keep away from proceedings and than make a statement that he was proceeded ex parte".
In view of this factual position, we find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
3. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the observations of a Magistrate who was appointed to hold an inquest into the death of the convict.
This is no doubt true but a perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal leaves no room for doubt that it based its decision on the report of the Enquiry Officer after considering the defence of the petitioner at length. We, therefore, do not think that this is a fit case for interference. Leave is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- FIDA HUSSAIN JAVED Versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB 2004 SCMR 62
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25