MUHAMMAD MANSOOB BUTT vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal upholding his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The petitioner raised two primary legal contentions: firstly, that the charge-sheet failed to specify the exact punishment, mentioning only appropriate disciplinary action; and secondly, that he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, thereby prejudicing his defence, relying on Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government. The Supreme Court held, regarding the first ground, that referencing the rules prescribing punishments in the charge-sheet sufficiently satisfies legal requirements, as settled in Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi v. Service Tribunal. Regarding the second ground, the Court held that the supply of an enquiry report is not mandatory in every case, as clarified in Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd., and noted that a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which under service rules occurs only when a major penalty like dismissal is likely. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does a charge-sheet fail to meet legal requirements if it specifies appropriate disciplinary action instead of a particular punishment?
- Is it mandatory to supply a copy of the enquiry report to an employee in every disciplinary case?
- Whether the failure to supply an enquiry report prejudices the defence of a civil servant who was granted a personal hearing for a major penalty?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, whose appeal against dismissal from service failed before the Service Tribunal, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6-4-1989.
2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for misconduct and an enquiry was held into his conduct. He was dismissed from service. He challenged the action on various grounds but failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up two grounds for maintaining this Petition for grant of leave to appeal. In the first place, it is contended that the charge-sheet did not specify the punishment which could be inflicted on proof of the charge, but only mentioned "appropriate disciplinary action" for the same. The second is that a copy of the enquiry report as indicated by the decision of this Court in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 SC 176) was not supplied to the petitioner and he has been thereby prejudiced in his defence.
4. The first legal ground has been taken care of by a decision by this Court in Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi v. Service Tribunal, Islamabad and others (1981 SCMR 402) and we find that the rules prescribing the punishments were referred to in the charge-sheet before calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the appropriate punishment.
5. In the case of Mir Muhammad (PLD 1981 SC 176) there were exceptional features and the learned counsel himself referred to Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. And others (1988 SCMR 1352) where the copy of the enquiry report was held to be not necessary in every case. Besides, we find that personal hearing had been afforded to the petitioner and it is afforded, under the rules of service, only when major penalty of dismissal is likely to be imposed.
6. As regards the factual aspect of the case, no question of leave to appeal arises and the Petition is dismissed.