GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN 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 had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service for misconduct. The petitioner, a Wireless Mechanic appointed in 1977 and promoted in 1990, was removed from service on 31-10-1993, and his departmental appeal was rejected by the Director-General, E.M.E. Directorate. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was never provided a charge-sheet or statement of allegations, that witnesses were not examined in his presence nor allowed to be cross-examined, that he was denied the opportunity to produce defense witnesses or be heard in person, and that as a civil servant, he was required to be proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether major penalties could be imposed without following the prescribed statutory disciplinary procedure. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contentions raised regarding the violation of mandatory disciplinary procedures and principles of natural justice. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary action resulting in major penalties against civil servants must strictly adhere to the prescribed rules and afford a proper opportunity of defense.
- Whether a civil servant can be removed from service for misconduct without being provided a charge-sheet or statement of allegations?
- Does the imposition of a major penalty on a civil servant require strict compliance with the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Is a civil servant entitled to cross-examine witnesses and produce defense evidence during disciplinary proceedings?
- 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 EME 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