Major penalty of compulsory retirement

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 93 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence
Side Opponent : BASHIR AHMED, SBA IN MES, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GE(ARMY), NOWSHERA
Continuous absence from duty---Major penalty of compulsory retirement ---Respondent was serving in the Military Engineering Services, Ministry of Defence---During service respondent was nominated as an accused in a murder case and an FIR was lodged against him---Respondent remained absent from duty without any authorization from the day the FIR was registered against him---Show-cause notice and opportunity of personal hearing was provided to respondent but he failed to appear before the Authorized Officer---Major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the respondent on account of his continuous absence from duty---Service Tribunal had held that on account of murder charges and the enmity with the complainant party, his absence was justified, thus, the major penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into minor penalty of withholding of three increments with reinstatement back in service---Legality---Case record showed that during the period of absence, no attempt was made on behalf of the respondent to apply for leave---Criminal case came to an end and respondent was acquitted on account of compromise reached with the complainant party, nevertheless before reaching the compromise, he was not in custody but remained an absconder and only surrendered before the law after the compromise was reached with the victim's family members---To seek condonation of absence during his absconsion would amount to putting premium on such act---In the present case, if reason provided by respondent was made a ground for condonation of absence, then in every case where the civil servant was involved in a criminal case and absconded, his absence from duty would have to be condoned---Act of absconsion or being a fugitive from law could not be regarded as a reasonable ground to explain absence---Impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and departmental action of imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement was restored---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 1212 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL
Side Appellant : ABDUL HASEEB SHEIKH
Side Opponent : The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
R. 7(7-a)---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5---Judicial officer---Disciplinary proceedings---Recommendation for imposition of minor penalty by the inquiry officer---Enhancement of penalty by the authority---Requirements---Inquiry officer made recommendations for imposition of minor penalty of withholding of promotion of the appellant for a period of four years---Competent authority issued show cause notice for enhancement of penalty upon which reply was filed by the judicial officer which was found unsatisfactory and major penalty of compulsory retirement was awarded---Contention of appellant was that authority could enhance punishment if inquiry officer had imposed penalty---Validity---Once inquiry had been completed by the inquiry officer/inquiry committee and charges were proved then inquiry officer/inquiry committee should have passed order imposing minor penalty and inform the competent authority by way of sending the record to the authority---If authority was not satisfied with the quantum of punishment awarded by the inquiry officer then it might within 30 days of receipt of the case could either initiate de novo inquiry or issue notice for enhancement of penalty---Inquiry officer, in the present case, recommended minor penalty but did not impose the same and record was sent to the authority---Authority could only issue notice for enhancement of penalty once minor penalty was awarded/imposed by the inquiry officer and same did not commensurate with the offence committed by the Judicial Officer---Inquiry officer had not awarded any minor penalty which could be enhanced by the authority---Authority/Administration Committee of the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a notice for enhancement of penalty in circumstances---Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a notice for enhancement of penalty on the basis of which impugned notification awarding major penalty was issued---Impugned notification was without lawful authority and jurisdiction which was set aside---Appellant had attained the age of superannuation therefore no order of reinstatement could be passed---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 965 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence
Side Opponent : BASHIR AHMED, SBA IN MES, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GE(ARMY), NOWSHERA
Continuous absence from duty---Major penalty of compulsory retirement ---Respondent was serving in the Military Engineering Services, Ministry of Defence---During service respondent was nominated as an accused in a murder case and an FIR was lodged against him---Respondent remained absent from duty without any authorization from the day the FIR was registered against him---Show-cause notice and opportunity of personal hearing was provided to respondent but he failed to appear before the Authorized Officer---Major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the respondent on account of his continuous absence from duty---Service Tribunal had held that on account of murder charges and the enmity with the complainant party, his absence was justified, thus, the major penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into minor penalty of withholding of three increments with reinstatement back in service---Legality---Case record showed that during the period of absence, no attempt was made on behalf of the respondent to apply for leave---Criminal case came to an end and respondent was acquitted on account of compromise reached with the complainant party, nevertheless before reaching the compromise, he was not in custody but remained an absconder and only surrendered before the law after the compromise was reached with the victim's family members---To seek condonation of absence during his absconsion would amount to putting premium on such act---In the present case, if reason provided by respondent was made a ground for condonation of absence, then in every case where the civil servant was involved in a criminal case and absconded, his absence from duty would have to be condoned---Act of absconsion or being a fugitive from law could not be regarded as a reasonable ground to explain absence---Impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and departmental action of imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement was restored---Appeal was allowed accordingly.