Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3143 = 1981 SLD 3143 = 1981 PLC 270
Service Tribunal Punjab
Case No. 236 of 1980, decided on 23rd November, 1980.
Presented By: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, S. Hafiz-ur-Rahman and Malik Zawwar Hussain, Members

MANZOOR ALI

VERSUS

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, C & W DEPARTMENT

Law: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Section: 6(3)

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. R. 6(3)---Show-cause notice-Proposed penalty-To be mentioned specifically.                                                                                                                  ORDER M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case the appellant, who is Executive Engineer in the Mechinery Maintenance Division of the Highway Department, seeks to quash an order dated 2-1-1980 made by the Secretary C & W (the respondent) whereby two increments of the appellant were stopped. A review petition was rejected on 6-4-1980: Briefly stated, the background of the case is that the appellant was suspended from service vide order dated 29-10-1978 for alleged irregularity committed by him on 3-9-1978 in accepting tender for the supply of construction material worth Rs. 3,75,000, for carpeting The Mall, Wah Cantonment. After a preliminary investigation by Mr. Munir Ahmad, Executive Engineer, Multan, who found that the appellant had committed no irregularity in respect of any of the six allegations given in the terms of 'reference, the appellant was re-instated in service with full pay, etc. However, the Governor's orders are said to have been obtained for imposing the penalty of withholding two increments on the ground that the conduct of the appellant was lacking in the following two aspects: "(i) Draft N. I. T. and Bid Schedule (as prescribed) in section 1101 of the Highway Department Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction) had not been prepared. (ii) The cuttings in the tender documents were not attested by you and the contractor before issue to the respective contractors." The appellant was also served with a show-cause notice dated 11-10-1979 under the E & D Rules in respect of these two deficiencies above. Later the impugned order was served on the appellant stating that as a result…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register