Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---- ----S. 4----Departmental appeal----Penalty of stoppage of increment----Scope---- Appellant, a Chief Instructor (BPS-20) at NIPA Karachi, was penalized with the stoppage of one increment for one year due to unauthorizedly opening crossed cheques, which facilitated their encashment and resulted in temporary embezzlement by a co-signatory. Appellant’s representation and departmental appeal were rejected, leading to an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Tribunal examined whether the departmental proceedings were conducted lawfully and whether the imposed penalty was justified in light of the facts and findings. Held, that the act of unauthorized opening of crossed cheques was a serious violation of established practice, amounting to misconduct and carelessness. Appellant failed to obtain prior approval of the Director before proceeding with the cheque alterations. The minor penalty imposed was found to be proportionate to the misconduct, and no mala fide intent was established against the Director in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the orders and dismissed the appeal. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973---- ----Rule 3 & Rule 4----Departmental inquiry----Principles of natural justice----Effect of failure to consult superior officer----Scope---- Appellant contended that he acted in good faith upon a colleague’s request and had not committed any fraud or embezzlement. However, the inquiry officer found that had the appellant exercised due caution or referred the matter to the Director, the unauthorized encashment could have been prevented. Tribunal observed that a senior officer is expected to exercise due diligence, and failure to do so amounted to misconduct. While the show-cause notice did not specify the exact penalty, no prejudice was caused as only a minor penalty was imposed. The delay in forwarding the departmental appeal to the appellate authority, though unfortunate, did not amount to mala fide intent on part of the Director. Held, that the procedural irregularities pointed out by the appellant were not substantial enough to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. (c) Administrative Law---- ----Decision-making by disciplinary authority----Requirement of reasons in rejection orders----Scope---- Appellant argued that his departmental representation was rejected without assigning proper reasons. Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedent, emphasized that while it is not mandatory for authorities to provide detailed reasoning, the rejection of appeals should not be ritualistic. In the present case, the original disciplinary order contained sufficient justification, and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. However, Tribunal directed the Secretary Establishment to ensure compliance with Supreme Court rulings requiring reasoning in rejection orders, to prevent arbitrary decision-making in future cases. ----Cited Cases: 1998 PLC (CS) 87 1997 SCMR 1160 PLD 1981 SC 176 1991 SCMR 2330 ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.