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, which modified a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant. The government sought to restore a penalty of reduction in rank, while the civil servant sought complete exoneration from charges of financial misconduct and procedural irregularities regarding tender processes for road construction. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority, which had increased the punishment beyond the recommendation of the authorized officer. The Supreme Court examined the allegations of deliberate underestimation of project costs to favor specific contractors and violations of the B&R Code, 1960. The Court found no legal flaw in the Tribunal's impugned judgment and determined that no substantial question of law of public importance was presented. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions and refused leave to appeal, effectively upholding the Tribunal's decision to modify the penalty, thereby affirming the principle that appellate service forums possess the discretion to review and adjust disciplinary penalties imposed by departmental authorities.
- Does the modification of a disciplinary penalty by a Service Tribunal constitute a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Can a Service Tribunal reduce a penalty imposed by a Competent Authority if the original penalty was deemed excessive?
- Is the deliberate underestimation of tender costs to favor a contractor considered misconduct under the B&R Code 1960?
- Paragraph 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 a 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 authorised officer. In the latter 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 to Chainpole) 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 Civil Petition No, 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 Petition 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 have at least imposed that penalty.
4. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced from both sides as no legal flaw 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,