GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Schools, Education
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had modified a major penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent to a lesser penalty of reduction in pay by three stages. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in modifying the penalty where the initial disciplinary proceedings lacked specific charges, concrete evidence, and a regular inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that the department failed to substantiate allegations of misconduct with cogent evidence, noting that no specific charges of cheating or copying were proven against any student, nor was any evidence of undue interference by the respondent established. The Court held that while the department possessed the legal power to dispense with a regular inquiry, the nature of the allegations necessitated one to ensure fairness. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the penalty of removal from service was disproportionately harsh and unjustified. The petition was dismissed, establishing that disciplinary penalties must be commensurate with proven guilt and supported by a regular inquiry when allegations are serious.
- Whether a major penalty of removal from service can be sustained in the absence of a regular inquiry for serious allegations?
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to modify a disciplinary penalty if the initial punishment is found to be disproportionately harsh and unsubstantiated by evidence?
- Does the failure to hold a regular inquiry under the E&D Rules invalidate a major penalty when the charges are not specific?
- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1999
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-4- 2003 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by means of order dated 14-2-2001 which has been altered to that of reduction in pay in three stages vide judgments impugned; hence this petition.
2. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of Govt. Of Punjab and urged with vehemence that major penalty of removal from service could not have been altered to that of reduction in pay in three stages without any laWful justification which is lacking. It is also contended that the gravity of situation was ignored by the learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions and perused the judgment impugned. A careful scrutiny of the record would reveal that no specific charge could be levelled against the respondent. No evidence worth the name could be collected that how the alleged assistance was rendered and to whom? No material rendering any help to the students including the daughter of the petitioner could be recovered. There is no specific charge of cheating or copying against any particular student. Neither any answer sheet was taken by the examiner/invigilator nor any action was initiated against any student for cheating or copying. No evidence has come on record showing that some undue interference was made by the respondent and what kind of interference it was? Viewed in this context a regular inquiry should have been conducted to unveil the reality.
The major penalty of removal from service should have not been imposed being too harsh in view of the nature of allegations, which could not be substantiated by adducing any cogent or concrete evidence. The learned Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the contentions as agitated before this Court in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced for ready reference:-- "I have considered the arguments from both sides and also gone through the relevant record as produced. The fact is manifest that while the charges are really not specific but the same are serious. It is also evidence that no enquiry was held under E&D Rules in order to provide the appellant adequate opportunity to defend her case. No doubt, the department was within its legal powers to dispense with the enquiry, but the nature of charges warranted that a regular enquiry should have been instituted. At the same time, the extreme penalty of removal from service is also not considered commensurate with the quantum of guilt even if clearly established. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeal is partly accepted and the punishment of removal from service is converted into that of reduction in pay by three stages. Resultantly, the impugned orders shall stand modified to that extent. The appellant shall stand reinstated and the period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due."
4. No question of law of public importance is involved persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The judgment impugned being well based and free from any illegality does not warrant interference.
The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH QURESHI vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Member 2008 PLC (C.S.) 759
- BASHIR AHMED CHANNA vs ALLAMA IQBAL UNIVERSITY 2008 PLC (C.S.) 954
- SHAHID KHAN vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 2 others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 555
- Muhammad Abdullah Qureshi vs Pakistan Railways Through Member K.L.R. 2007 Labour & Services Cases 134
- Syed RAHAT ALI vs DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN SINDH CIRCLE, HYDERABAD and another 2103 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 68