| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1587 2013 SLD 1587 2013 SCMR 817 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 1708-L to 1710-L of 2012, decisiondated: 19-02-2013. (On appeal from the judgment dated16-5-2012 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore inAppeals Nos. 1180, 1185 and 1323 of 2011)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional A.G. and Arshad Javaid Chadhar, Deputy Director Legal, C&W Department for Petitioners. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.Ps. Nos. 1708-L and 1709-L of 2012).
Civil Petitions Nos. 1708-L to 1710-L of 2012, decisiondated: 19-02-2013. (On appeal from the judgment dated16-5-2012 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore inAppeals Nos. 1180, 1185 and 1323 of 2011)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional A.G. and Arshad Javaid Chadhar, Deputy Director Legal, C&W Department for Petitioners. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.Ps. Nos. 1708-L and 1709-L of 2012).
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
VS
KHALID HUSSAIN HAMDANI and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)----Ss. 13 & 4(1)(a)(v)---Negligence on part of civil servant---Quantum of punishment---Punishment to be proportional to the charge---Scope---Inquiry officer finding civil servant to be contributory negligent and recommending minor penalty---Competent authority enhancing punishment to major penalty without giving reasons for disagreeing with recommendations of inquiry officer, and after relying on a report which was prepared after show-cause notice had been issued to civil servant---Legality---Civil servants were only charged for paying excess advances to a contractor---No charge of corruption was made against them nor was there any allegation against them of making personal gain---Findings recorded by inquiry officer indicated that act of civil servants could be described as "contributory negligence"---Inquiry officer recommended withholding of promotion of civil servants for a specific period of time and recovery of Rs. 2.76 million which had been paid to the contractor---Competent authority issued show cause notices to civil servants, whereafter a report was called from the Chief Engineer---Competent authority enhanced penalty to dismissal from service after relying on the said report---Civil servants were never confronted with the findings of the said report, which was submitted after the inquiry thus it was neither part of the inquiry nor civil servants were given any notice of it---Enhancement of penalty by competent authority on basis of such report was unreasonable and based on extraneous material---Even otherwise quantum of sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of charge as admittedly there was no allegation of collusiveness with the contractor or of corruption---Additionally, competent authority disagreed with the recommendations of the inquiry officer without assigning any reasons---Since competent authority did not agree with recommendations of inquiry officer, it could have proceeded in terms of S.13(6) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and either remanded the inquiry to the inquiry officer or could have directed de novo…
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