RIAZ AHMAD vs THE COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his removal from service. The petitioner, appointed in 1985, ceased attending duties in November 1985 and remained absent for approximately eight years before attempting to rejoin. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in his removal from service. The core legal question was whether a full-fledged departmental inquiry was mandatory given the petitioner's claim that he had attempted to report for duty but was prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court held that while a full-fledged inquiry is generally the proper course to allow for cross-examination and evidence production, it is not strictly required where the facts are simple and undisputed. In this case, the petitioner failed to produce any credible documentary or oral evidence to substantiate his claim of reporting for duty during his eight-year absence. Consequently, the Court found the disciplinary action justified and refused leave to appeal, affirming that the absence of a formal inquiry did not vitiate the proceedings where the material facts were not in dispute.
- Is a full-fledged departmental inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving unauthorized absence?
- Does the failure to conduct a full-fledged inquiry vitiate disciplinary proceedings where the facts are simple and undisputed?
- Can an employee claim wrongful removal after an unexplained absence of eight years without providing evidence of attempts to report for duty?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby by majority his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Espy by the respondent on 9-4-1985. He was transferred by order dated 17-10-1985 from Bahawalpur to Circle-I, Multan and was relieved of his duties by order dated 22-10-1985. He was thereafter posted at Zonal Office, Multan and was relieved on 19-11-1985.
Thereafter the petitioner did not join duty. It seems that he applied for 3 days' leave on 19-11-1985 but did not return on duty thereafter. It was alleged by the petitioner that after 16 days he reported on duty but he was not allowed to join. The petitioner seems to have made application to the Member, C.B.R. And the Second Secretary, C.B.R. By letter dated 21-12-1993 directed him to appear before the Collector of Customs, Multan. As he had been absent from duty for a very long time, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was served with a show-cause notice which was replied by him. In the show-cause notice, it was alleged that after a lapse of 8 years he had approached the Central Board of Revenue with a request to allow him to join the duty. It was further stated that during his absence from 19-1-1985 onwards he did not bother to join the duties or tried to make any correspondence with the office and kept the office in the dark about his whereabouts. In reply the petitioner stated that he tried to join the office but each time evasive reply was given and he was not allowed to join the service. The Deputy Collector, Customs the authority, removed him from service by order dated 27-3-1984 with effect from 19-11-1985. Not succeeding in departmental appeal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned majority judgment.
3. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, full-fledged inquiry ought to have been held and the petitioner should have been allowed to defend himself by producing oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel referred to certain documents placed on record to show that in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992, the petitioner had made representations to the departmental authorities for redress but no relief was granted to him. The charge against the petitioner was that they had remained absent for a very long time from 1985 to 1993 and had agitated for joining the duty after a lapse of about 8 years. These letters referred to now do not improve the case of the petitioner as they were not produced before the Assistant Collector who was of cross-examination has to be given, the proper course is always to hold a full-fledged inquiry. Otherwise, the findings recorded as in this case, will be based more on conjectures than on evidence/material available on record properly produced and accepted". There is no cavil with this proposition because in the present case the facts were simple and undisputed and the petitioner had not produced any documentary or oral evidence to prove that during the period 1985 to 1993 he had been reporting on duty and was not A allowed to join. Leave is refused.