MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Manzoor Hussain against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld his removal from service. The petitioner, serving as a Registration Muharrir and Reader to Tehsildar, was proceeded against departmentally following an inspection report by the Inspector-General of Registration highlighting serious deficiencies in his work. The Deputy Commissioner served a charge-sheet, but the authorised officer subsequently dispensed with a formal inquiry and issued a show-cause notice, ultimately leading to the petitioner's removal from service by the Deputy Commissioner. The core legal question was whether dispensing with a formal inquiry after the issuance of a charge-sheet rendered the departmental proceedings illegal, and whether the authorised officer was competent to do so. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 6(2) of the applicable disciplinary rules, the authorised officer had the discretion to decide whether a formal inquiry was necessary, and given that the allegations were based on official records, the decision was not arbitrary. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
- Whether an authorised officer can dispense with a formal inquiry after a charge-sheet has been served under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules?
- Can the decision of an authorised officer to dispense with a formal inquiry be challenged as arbitrary when the charges are based on office records?
- Rule 6(2), Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was serving as reader to Tehsildar and as registration Muharrir in Tchsil Nankana Sahib. On 17-1-1985, the Inspector-General of Registration inspected his office and reported; "The working of this office on the whole is highly unsatisfactory. The Registration Muharrir is oblivious of his basic duties. Recovery of outstanding dues is totally neglected. Proper maintenance of the record is not being ensured. The evaluation of the deeds presented for registration for the purposes of levy of registration fee and stamp duty is not being ensured. The present Registration Moharrir is hardly capable of doing his job properly as he is holding this charge in addition to his duties as Reader to Tehsildar. It is in fitness to relieve him of this charge and to appoint a whole time official who can devote his fullest attention to the work of Registration office."
' On the basis of this report the Deputy Commissioner who was the Authority in respect of the petitioner prepared a charge-sheet and served it upon the petitioner. Later, the Assistant Commissioner who was the authorised officer in relation to the petitioner dispensed with the requirement of holding an inquiry and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. After taking into consideration the written reply submitted by the petitioner and hearing him in person, the Assistant Commissioner took the view that the nature of charges against the petitioner was serious and imposition of a major penalty was called upon. Accordingly, he referred the case to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate orders. The Deputy Commissioner also heard the petitioner in person and found his explanation unsatisfactory. Accordingly, by an order dated 23-9-1985 he removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner moved an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the .Provincial Service Tribunal. This too remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the proceedings taken against the petitioner were illegal inasmuch as no regular inquiry was held against him. In support of this contention it is stated that after the Authority had served a regular charge-sheet on the petitioner, it was not later open to the authorised officer to dispense with the requirement of an inquiry. This contention is without any merit. The question whether a formal inquiry was called for or not was one for the authorised officer to decide. See Rule 6(2), the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules. The authorised officer came to the conclusion that the inquiry was not called upon.
Considering the fact that the allegations made against the petitioner were based entirely on the record of his own office, the decision taken by the authorised officer in this regard cannot be regarded as arbitrary. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the despartmental proceedings taken against the petitioner were illegal.
3. One of the charges against the petitioner was that he had taken no step to recover the short fall in stamp duty. It is argued on his behalf that this charge was without any foundation and in support of this assertion reliance has been placed upon a letter of the Tehsildar wherein it was stated that out of total amount of Rs, 24,550, a sum of Rs, 18,250 had been recovered. This letter is of no assistance to the petitioner. The Inspector-General recorded his report on 17-1-1985 and in that he took notice of the position as it stood on that day. The letter of the Tehsildar was written on 30- 5-1985 and as such had no reference to the state of affairs which prevailed four months earlier.
This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.