MIAN SAIFURRAHMAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Controller of Import and Export in Azad Kashmir, from service following allegations of issuing illegal permits. After being served with a charge sheet, the petitioner failed to appear before the inquiry officer, leading the authority to dismiss him under Rule 8(b) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. His departmental appeal before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's detention constituted a valid ground for his failure to participate in the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's explanation was untenable because he was released on bail shortly after his arrest and failed to offer any justification for not attending the inquiry thereafter. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that detention does not excuse non-appearance when a petitioner is subsequently released on bail and still fails to join proceedings.
- Whether detention under criminal charges justifies a government servant's failure to participate in a departmental inquiry?
- Can an authority proceed to dismiss a civil servant ex parte under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules upon failure to attend proceedings?
- Rule 8(b), Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was an Assistant Controller of Import and Export in Azad Kashmir. There were allegations against him that he had issued illegal permits for the import of reconditioned cars. He was served with a charge together with a statement of allegation on 14-5- 1979 and an inquiry officer was appointed to hold an inquiry. Despite several efforts the petitioner failed to appear before the inquiry officer with the result that it became impossible to complete the inquiry. The Authority took advantage of the provision of Rule 8(b), Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and by an order dated 10-9-1979 dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was under arrest in a case registered against him and for that reason it was not possible for him to participate in the inquiry. This explanation is clearly untenable. He was arrested on 25-5-1979 and was released on bail on 6-6-1979. He has not been able to show why he did not appear before the inquiry officer or the departmental authorities after his release I on bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.