BASHARAT ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This civil petition arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a departmental penalty. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, a Grade-17 civil servant, leading to a penalty imposed by the Special Secretary Education (Schools). The petitioner's departmental appeal was declared non-maintainable and his subsequent review petition was dismissed by the Secretary Education. The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that the Special Secretary Education (Schools) lacked jurisdiction and lawful authority, as the Secretary Education was the sole competent authority to impose penalties on Grade-17 officers. The Supreme Court considered whether an initial penalty order passed by an incompetent authority could stand or be cured by a subsequent review dismissal by the competent authority. Conceding the legal defect, the Advocate-General and Special Secretary agreed to a remand. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the judgments and departmental orders, and remanded the matter to the department for fresh proceedings by the competent authority in accordance with law.
- Does the Special Secretary Education (Schools) possess lawful authority to impose disciplinary penalties on a Grade-17 civil servant when the Secretary Education is the designated competent authority?
- Can a departmental penalty order passed without lawful authority by an incompetent officer be cured by the subsequent dismissal of a review petition by the competent authority?
- Whether an order of penalty passed by an incompetent authority must be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh proceedings by the competent authority?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal through which appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Departmental Authority has been dismissed.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner at the conclusion of which on 24-8- 1999, the Special Secretary Education (Schools) imposed penalty against him. He filed departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary which was held to be not maintainable, therefore, he filed review petition which was dismissed by the Secretary Education. The petitioner filed appeal before the Service Tribunal challenging the said order of the Departmental Authority, inter alia, on the ground that original order of imposition of penalty passed by the Special Secretary Education (Schools) was without lawful authority for he being a civil servant in Grade-17, Secretary Education was competent authority to pass the order and even if his review petition was placed before the said Secretary who dismissed the same, it will not in any manner remove the legal lacuna as the original order by Special Secretary Education (Schools) was without lawful authority.
3. Learned Advocate General, Punjab was issued notice to assist the Court, Special Secretary Education (Schools) was also summoned who is present.
4. Both learned Advocate General and Special Secretary Education (Schools) say that at the relevant time and even now, in respect of officers up to Grade-17, the Education Secretary who is head. Of the Department is the competent authority to pass order, therefore, they have no objection it the case is remanded for further proceedings from the stage when on 24-8-1999, order was passed by the Special Secretary Education (Schools) to be dealt with by the competent authority.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, judgment dated 26-11-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal alongwith the order dated 24-8-1999 of the Special Secretary Education (Schools) of imposition of penalty on petitioner and order dated 2-1-2001 of Respondent No,1 dismissing his review petition are set aside and the case is remanded to the department concerned for further proceedings by the competent authority in accordance with law.
' No orders as costs.
Cited by 10 cases
- ALI NAWAZ SOOMRO vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 697
- AMANULLAH vs DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, POSTAL REGION, SUKKUR and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 940
- TASNEEM AHMED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad and 2 others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1085
- NOOR MUHAMMAD LASHARI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Divisional 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1058
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN 2006 PLC (C.S.) 750
- TOUSEEF AHMED MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 795
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs SIDDIQUE AHMED NAYYAR and another 2006 PLC (C.S.) 392
- NISAR AHMED QURESHI and others vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL BIN QASIM, KARACHI and another 2006 PLC (C.S.) 675
- LAIQ AHMED vs CHAIRMAN, PTCL (BOARD), BAORD OF DIRECTORS, PTCL 2006 PLC (C.S.) 712
- JAVED AHMED vs CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Chairman and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 785