SHAMSHAD ALI vs SENIOR POSTMASTER (DELIVERY) and others
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged his compulsory retirement from service, which was imposed following an allegation of temporary misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the authority dispensed with a regular departmental enquiry without recording any reasons or passing a formal order to justify the adoption of a summary procedure, despite the petitioner having provided an explanation for the delay in depositing the funds. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the disciplinary authority acted in accordance with the law by bypassing a regular enquiry without assigning reasons, particularly in light of established precedents regarding the necessity of following prescribed disciplinary procedures. The core legal question concerns the procedural validity of dispensing with a regular enquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant without explicit justification.
- Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a regular enquiry against a government servant without recording reasons for adopting a summary procedure?
- Is it mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 before imposing a major penalty?
- Rule 5, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---The grievance of the petitioner is that he was charge-sheeted on the ground that there was temporary misappropriation of the amount of Rs,4,24,500 for which explanation was furnished by him that he deposited it late due to overburden of work, but his explanation was not accepted and straightaway order of major penalty retiring him from service compulsorily was passed. Without any enquiry. Perusal of the order of compulsory retirement passed on 30-3-1995 is indicative of the fact that in view of admission in the written defence statement, personal hearing was granted which shows that summary procedure was adopted dispensing with regular enquiry. It is contended before us that the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was not followed and that there was no order passed or reasons assigned for dispensing with regular enquiry and ordering holding of summary enquiry. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan (1995 SCM R 1042).
2. Leave is granted to examine this case in the light of the contention mentioned above.