GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore vs ADIL RASHID KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the demotion of the respondent, Adil Rashid Khan. The respondent, formerly a Personal Assistant (BPS-15) in the dissolved Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development Board, was initially absorbed as a Senior Scale Stenographer (BPS-15) in the Chief Minister's Inspection Team. Following a representation, a corrigendum was issued designating him as a Personal Assistant (BPS-15), and he was subsequently granted a selection grade (BPS-16). However, the government later cancelled this corrigendum without providing the respondent an opportunity for a hearing, effectively demoting him. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally cancel the respondent's designation and demote him without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. The Court affirmed that the respondent's position as a Personal Assistant had been confirmed by relevant departmental authorities, and the arbitrary cancellation of his status without a hearing was legally unsustainable, thereby reinforcing the necessity of due process in administrative service matters.
- Can a government department unilaterally demote a civil servant by cancelling a previous designation order without providing an opportunity of hearing?
- Does the absorption of a civil servant from a dissolved statutory body into a new department entitle them to retain their previous designation and status?
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 17-10- 1994, of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, thereby Service Appeal No, 176/93 filed by Adil Rashid Khan respondent, was allowed.
2. Adil Rashid Khan respondent was working as Personal Assistant in BPS-15 with the Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development Board, when the Board was dissolved in the year 1986. He was sent to the Surplus Pool and was absorved as Senior Scale Stenographer (BPS-15) in the office of the Chief Minister's Inspection Team. He represented against his absorption as Senior Scale Stenographer, which was allowed; in corrigendum, dated 20-3-1991 was issued and he was shown as Personal Assistant in BPS-15 in the new Department. Thereafter in 1992 he was awarded selection grade BPS-16 with effect from 25-6-1990 and was shown in the seniority list circulated on 31-8-1990.
3. On representation made by some of the S&GAD the corrigendum earlier issued was cancelled on 14-1-1993 and he was demoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. BPS-15. It was the case of the respondent that this order was passed without providing him an opportunity of hearing.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned order he made a representation and finding no response thereto preferred Service Appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment referred to above.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondent was absorbed as Senior Scale Stenographer, therefore, he could not retain his previous status. The corrigendum issued to show him Personal Assistant was rightly cancelled by the Provincial Government. He, however, was unable to give satisfactory reply to the question that the Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Board was dissolved when the respondent was serving as Personal Assistant in BPS-15, as also that subsequently his absorption as Senior Scale Stenographer was set aside by a panel of 3 officers consisting upon the Secretary Chief Minister's Inspection Team, the Secretary, Livestock and the Director-General Extension Livestock, and his position was confirmed by the Secretary, Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development Board in his letter dated 22-12-1990.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the impugned judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, and find that the impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity, so as to call for interference by this Court.
' In our view, this petition is devoid of substance, which is dismissed and .