CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others vs MUHAMMAD
This matter involves two cross-petitions challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 17-6-1999. The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government official for alleged financial irregularities, specifically the manipulation of tender amounts for the Lahore-Jaranwala Road project and failure to follow mandatory advertising procedures under the B&R Code 1960. The authorized officer had recommended a reduction of two stages in the time scale, but the competent authority imposed a harsher penalty of reduction in rank. The Service Tribunal subsequently modified this penalty. The government sought to restore the original, harsher punishment, while the employee sought total exoneration, arguing the alleged irregularities caused no financial loss and that similarly situated officers were exonerated. The Supreme Court examined whether the impugned judgment suffered from legal flaws or involved substantial questions of law of public importance. Finding no merit in the arguments presented by either party and concluding that no substantial question of law was involved, the Court dismissed both petitions and refused leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the Tribunal's decision.
- Does the enhancement of a tender amount without proper justification constitute financial indiscipline and misconduct?
- Can a Service Tribunal modify a penalty imposed by a competent authority in disciplinary proceedings?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable before the Supreme Court if it fails to raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Para 2.61, B&R Code 1960
ORDER
' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of the above two petitions as they impugn the legality of the common judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 17-6-1999. The former petition is by the Punjab Government with prayer to restore the punishment of reduction in rank to a lower post which was imposed by the competent authority and setting aside the impugned judgment whereby the said penalty was reduced and was converted into reduction of two stages in the time scale as was recommended by the authorized officer. In the lalter petitioner wants to be exonerated in toto from the charges levelled against him. The petitioner in C.P.-850-L of 2000 was proceeded against on the disciplinary rules for the following charges (irregularities):-- "Tenders for the work Lahore Jaranwala Road (Grid Station of Chainpoled) were floated approximately for an amount of Rs,50,000 whereas in the 1st running, 2nd running and 3rd running bills payments were made for Rs,117,415 Rs,2,19,690 and Rs,3,17,686 respectively. This shows that the actual estimated cost of the project was much higher than the amount reflected in the first question but he deliberately showed lesser amount in order to award the work to one of his favourite contractors with mala fide intention. Moreover this is a clear violation of para. 2.61 of B&R Code 1960 which states that the tenders are to be widely advertised in the most open and public manner through newspapers. Further the enhancement of the agreement from Rs,50,000 to Rs,3,17,686 is also misuse of authority and financial indiscipline entailing misconduct and mala fide intention."
2. The authorised officer recommended imposition of reduction of two stages in the time scale but the competent authority instead punished the petitioner with reduction in rank to a lower post.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.-957-L of 2000 submitted that the respondent exceeded its authority in matter of fixing the amount in tender and was, therefore, liable to be dealt with severely. On the other hand the learned counsel in Petiton No,850-L of 2000 submitted that the charge against the petitioner was of procedural irregularity as the alleged irregularity attributed to the petitioner had not resulted into any financial loss to the Government and that the officer proceeded against for similar charges, had been exonerated of the charges. It was further pointed that the inquiry officer had recommended simple censure and, therefore, the Service Tribunal should heave at least imposed that penalty.
4. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced from both sides as no legal flow could be indicated in the impugned judgment nor we could be satisfied that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. Both the petitions are dismissed and leave is refused.