GHULAM MOHI-UD-D1N vs The COMMANDANT, E.M.E. RECORDS, QUETTA and 3
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, a civil servant who had been promoted to Highly Skilled Grade-I Wireless Mechanic, was removed from service on allegations of misconduct. His departmental appeal was rejected by the Director-General, E.M.E. Directorate, and subsequently, his service tribunal appeal was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was not provided a charge-sheet or statement of allegations, witnesses were not examined in his presence, he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses or produce defense evidence, and he was not heard in person. Furthermore, it was argued that as a civil servant, he was required to be proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and major penalties could not be imposed without following the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions regarding the violation of mandatory procedural safeguards and statutory rules in imposing major penalties.
- Whether a civil servant can be removed from service for misconduct without being provided a charge-sheet and statement of allegations?
- Is it mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, before imposing a major penalty?
- Whether a civil servant facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence in defense?
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner (Ghulam Mohi-udDin) seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 1-8-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby Appeal No, 73(R) of 1994 filed by him was dismissed.
2. On 7-1-1977, the petitioner was appointed as Semi-Skilled Grade-II Wireless Mechanic in 502 Central E.M.E. Workshops, Rawalpindi. On the basis of his satisfactory performance of duties he was promoted to highly skilled Grade-I Wireless Mechanic on 30-5-1990. The petitioner on the basis of the allegations of misconduct was removed from service with effect from 31-10-1993. He challenged the order of his removal in appeal which was rejected on 14-2-1994 by the Director- General, E.M.E. Directorate, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was not provided either charge- sheet or the statement of allegations to enable him to explain his position. He also contended that neither the witnesses were examined in his presence nor he was provided opportunity of cross- examining them. He was not allowed to produce any witness in support of his defence nor he was heard in person. It was further submitted that the petitioner being civil servant was required to be proceeded against under the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The major penalty of the removal from service could not have been imposed without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules.
4. After hearing learned counsel and going through the file, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case to examine the aforementioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
Cited by 1 case
- and Muhammad Ayub Khan, MemberMUMTAZ ALI CHANGEZI and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 484