Termination ya compulsory retirement challenge converted into withholding increment Punjab Service tribunal
reinstate of government employees
Dear Reader Ajj hum aap ke sath aik authority share karain ge . jiss main Punjab service tribunal ne Compulsory retirement ko khatam kar ke court ke mulazam ko bahal kar dia or Compulsory Retirement ko tabdeel kar dia . or sirf do saal tak increment rok di . yeh faisla iss banyad per kia gia ke kisi ko saza us ke qasur se barh kar nahi di ja sakti . Neeche hum authority share ker rahe hain .converted into withholding of increment
for two years. Intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
Related pages
service-matter-cases.
/compulsory-retirement-challenge
back-benifits-service-tribunal-and.html
problems of pensions holders
sarkari mulazmeen ki bahali
oper-wali-post-se-neeche-wali-post-per.html
meri-departmental-apeal-mehkmana-apeal.
sarkari-mulazameen-ke-haqook-through.html
/compulsory-retirement-challenge
back-benifits-service-tribunal-and.html
problems of pensions holders
sarkari mulazmeen ki bahali
oper-wali-post-se-neeche-wali-post-per.html
meri-departmental-apeal-mehkmana-apeal.
sarkari-mulazameen-ke-haqook-through.html
[Punjab Service Tribunal,
Present: Justice (R) Shoaib Saeed, Chairman
ATHAR SOHAIL--Appellant
versus
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR , etc.--Respondents
Appeal No. 911 of 2016, decided on 25.9.2017.
----S. 4--Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999, R. 4--Employee of subordinate judiciary--Charge of absence from duty--Proved in inquiry proceedings--Major penalty recommended--Quantum of Punishment--Appeal before Tribunal--Validity--Civil Servant was imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on allegation of absence from duty for one day--Held that authority did not consider explanation put forth by civil servant--Punishment imposed is too harsh--Level of misconduct does not commensurate quantum of punishment imposed upon civil servant--Appeal partially allowed. [P. 152 & 153] A & C
----S. 4--Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999, R 4--Employee of subordinate judiciary--Charge of absence from duty--Imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement--Receipt of pensionary benefits--Whether attracts Estoppel--Receipt of dues cannot disentitle/debar civil servant from seeking relief of reinstatement from tribunal--It is a question of fact to be determined on basis of record whether compulsory retirement from service was out of free will/voluntary or under duress. [P. 153] B
Mukhtar Ahmad Malik, Advocate Counsel for Appellant.
DA.
Muhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman, ACOC/DR for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25.9.2017.
Order
Briefly, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur East vide letter dated 24.06.2015 made a report that appellant remained absent from duty on 24.06.2015 without any leave or information. Appellant was directed to submit his explanation, he submitted the same which was found not satisfactory.
2. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur East was appointed inquiry officer to hold a regular inquiry. The inquiry officer served appellant with the following statement of allegation:--
That you Mr. Athar Sohail, Stenographer while posted in the Court of Mr. Faisal Raza Gillani, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur East absented yourself from duty on 24.6.2015 without any leave or even information to your presiding officer, hence you are liable for inefficiency and misconduct.
The undersigned has been appointed as inquiry officer by the worthy District and Sessions Judge, being competent authority, therefore, you are required to face the inquiry under the relevant provision of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999.”
3. After proceedings inquiry officer recommended major penalty of dismissal from service on appellant as provided under rule 4(b)(v) of the Punjab Civil Servant (E&D) Rules 1999.
4. On receipt of the inquiry report dated 30.09.2015, authority issued personal hearing notice under Rule 10 of the rule ibid.
5. Consequently, competent authority District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement on appellant vide order dated 03.10.2015. Appellant preferred departmental appeal before Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore which is still pending. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant submitted leave application for 24.6.2015 which was neither rejected or accepted. However, allegation of one day’s absence from duty does not constitute misconduct under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999, as it does not come within the ambit of willful absence. That impugned order has not been passed in a judicial manner rather it was passed in angry mood. That proper procedure was not adopted before awarding major punishment and he did not commit any misconduct. That impugned orders were passed in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without thoroughly sifting the material essential for awarding of penalty. It is averred that serious irregularities were committed by the department in this case.
7. Conversely, learned District Attorney vehemently opposed arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned orders. That appellant was given full opportunity to explain his position but he could not put forth any plausible explanation in his favour, therefore, punishment is quite just, fair and inconsonance to the gravity of the allegations levelled. He is rightly punished according to his guilt and does not deserve any leniency.
8. Arguments heard, record perused.
9. Perusal of record shows that during personal hearing before the authority appellant submitted verbal and written explanation
but authority did not consider it and held appellant guilty of misconduct. On the other hand, appellant was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service on account of his absence only for one day. The punishment imposed under the circumstances is too harsh.
but authority did not consider it and held appellant guilty of misconduct. On the other hand, appellant was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service on account of his absence only for one day. The punishment imposed under the circumstances is too harsh.
10. That prior to appellant’s absence on 24.6.2015 it is in inquiry report he sought leave for a day which was refused, instead of reporting for duty on pretext of dismantling of wall of his house he telephonically conveyed Ahlmad regarding same showed inability to attend Court. No doubt when leave was refused appellant should have attended Court, but on the other hand the Inquiry Officer recommending “Dismissal from Service” keeping in view the guilt could have recommended milder penalty. The authority while modifying the Dismissal from service into compulsory retirement emphasized that it was done on appellant’s request. Departmental Representative placed appellant’s written request in this regard before the Tribunal, appellant who was available when confronted with application stated request made was not voluntary or of free will but made under extreme mental agony and pressure as he was told that else-wise dismissal would follow.
11. It was argued that after receipt of pensionary benefits and drawing of monthly pension appellant cannot challenge the order of compulsory retirement. The receipt of dues cannot disentitle/debar appellant from seeking relief of reinstatement from the Tribunal. It is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of record whether compulsory retirement from service was out of free will/voluntary or under duress. However, appellant is directed to return/deposit all pensionary benefits alongwith monthly pensions received till to-date within 60 days hereof.
12. I am of the view that punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the respondents to the appellant due to one day absence which too was not willful is harsh and not called for. This level of misconduct does not commensurate the quantum of punishment as contained in the impugned order.
13. Be that as it may, the concept of major and minor penalty in the service laws is to determine the question of punishment in the light of nature and gravity of the charge. I find that in the present case, concerned authority without attending to this aspect, awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement to the appellant.
14. I am inclined to take a lenient view of the appellant’s mistake, this appeal is partially allowed, impugned orders are set aside, appellant is reinstated into service. The penalty of compulsory retirement from service is converted into withholding of increment
for two years. Intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
for two years. Intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
(Z.I.S.) Appeal partially allow
Popular Post
I service in Pakistan Railways as Head clerk jhelum.. I convicted in cruption case by the order of spl judge centrel Lahor on 1.2.19 and sent to jail for 5 years. I am bail out from high court on 6.3.19 the order of lower court was sespended. I applied duty. But over department did not pass order for joining my duty up till now.. Kindly guide me what I do.. My cell no. 03124377314
ReplyDelete0092-324-4010279 whatsApp available
DeleteDear it is possible , first of all application to department and if they dont reply then we can sue them in court .we guarantee 100 percent to reinstate on job . call us to know detail
ReplyDeleteWeb Development Company in Lahore
ReplyDeleteCodeNinja.pk is digital products production studio, web development company in lahore web design seo digital marketing mobile app with creative mind innovation
Good Job, I really like your blog. Keep it up Bro!
ReplyDeletegrow your business with punjab ads. Post free Ads Now >> Narowal Ads