Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 1880 2013 SLD 1880 2013 PLC 928
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Punjab
S.A. No.5 of 2011, heard on 7-02-2012
IJAZ UL AHSAN, CHAIRMAN SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, MEMBERS

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SAEED AHMAD AWAN

VS

REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999--- ----Rr. 4 & 7---Misconduct---Inefficiency---Removal from service---Penalty of removal from service was imposed on Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, after holding inquiry against him on allegation that he was not writing s/orders despite having announced the same---Enquiry Officer reported that charge of misconduct could not be proved against him, while charge of inefficiency stood established---Enquiry Officer after due application of mind, considered it appropriate to take a lenient view by recommending imposition of minor penalty of censure upon the Judicial Officer---Administrative Committee of the High Court on the recommendation of Hearing Judge imposed major penalty of removal from service---Validity---Charge of misconduct against civil servant had nowhere been proved---No evidence was on record to the effect that civil servant was either dishonest or had committed any act which would fall within the meaning of misconduct---Allegation against Judicial Officer was, that he had 31 judicial files lying in his chamber, without written s and orders; as a Judicial Officer, it was his duty to take steps to ensure that same was remedied---Nothing was available in the record to show that the Judicial Officer made any effort to remedy the situation and acted carelessly in that regard---Enquiry Officer, in circumstances, was justified in finding some degree of inefficiency on the part of Judicial Officer to justify recommendation to impose minor penalty of censure---No charge of dishonesty or corruption was on record against the Judicial Officer, and his professional performance was up to the mark his case was not fit for enhancement of penalty---Impugned order of competent authority was set aside, he was reinstated into service with all back benefits---Penalty of censure recommended by Enquiry Officer, was upheld which would remain intact. (b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999--- ----R. 4(1)(b)---Inefficiency---Major penalty---Major penalty, as the term suggested, was a serious and extreme punishment; in the context of Service Laws, it could mean the end of a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492