Secretary Health (Rural) Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others vs Dr. Tufail Ahmad
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which accepted the respondent's service appeal and set aside the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent, a Medical Officer, was initially issued a charge-sheet for concealing a fracture during a medical examination. The Authorized Officer imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment, but petitioner No. 1, acting as the competent authority, enhanced it to compulsory retirement. The core legal question concerns whether the competent authority could exercise powers under Rule 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to enhance the penalty, and whether a fresh show-cause notice was required. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these points, determining that the questions raised merit a comprehensive examination of the scope of powers exercisable by the competent authority under the relevant rules.
- Whether the competent authority can exercise powers under Rule 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 for the enhancement of a penalty imposed by the Authorized Officer?
- Is a fresh show-cause notice required when the competent authority enhances a minor penalty to a major penalty after affording an opportunity of hearing?
- Rule 17, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners eek leave to appeal against judgment dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Service Appeal No. 1494 of 1997.
2. The respondent at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer/Incharge Government Rural Dispensary, Mukhad, District Attock. He was issued charge-sheet dated 8.5.1996 alongwith statement of allegations by the Authorized Officer, in that, he, during medical examination by him, concealed the fracture of right 8th and 9th Rib of Akbar Khan. The respondent submitted his reply thereto. The report of the inquiry officer which was somewhat favourable to the respondent was not agreed to by the Authorized Officer who vide order dated 22.7.2000 imposed upon the respondent a minor penalty of stoppage of only one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner No. 1 being the competent authority vide order dated 11.11.1996 enhanced the minor penalty to a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. However, the Service Appeal No. 1494 of 1997 filed by the respondent was accepted by the Tribunal and he was reinstated in service by setting aside the major penalty of compulsory retirement.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal took an erroneous view that it was only the appellate authority which could exercise the powers under Rule 17 of the Punjab Civil Se wants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 for the enhancement of the penalty imposed by the Authorized Officer. The learned counsel argued that the major penalty was imposed by the petitions No.1 after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to th respondent and that no fresh show-cause notice was required to be issued.
4. We grant leave to appeal to consider the above points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. .