Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 – Misconduct – Documentary Evidence —Government Servant—Direct Correspondence with Minister—Disciplinary Proceedings—Competency of Authority The appellant, a Senior Litigation Assistant in Pakistan Railways, was dismissed from service for misconduct under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The misconduct was based on his direct correspondence with the Federal Minister for Railways, wherein he accused senior railway officials of corruption and misappropriation of funds. The appellant argued that his actions were in the public interest, exposing corruption, and that the disciplinary proceedings against him were illegal as they were initiated by an incompetent authority. The Tribunal held that the appellant's actions were prejudicial to good order and service discipline, falling squarely within the definition of misconduct under Section 2(b) of the Ordinance. The Tribunal further found that the competent authority, Director Legal Affairs, had lawfully issued the show cause notice and dismissed the appellant in accordance with the prevailing legal framework. ----Cited Law: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended by Ordinance No. V of 2001) (b) Disciplinary Proceedings – Inquiry Requirement – Documentary Evidence as Proof: —Absence of Regular Inquiry—Sufficiency of Documentary Evidence—Personal Hearing The appellant challenged his dismissal on the ground that no formal inquiry was conducted and that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal observed that where sufficient documentary evidence is available to establish misconduct, a regular inquiry is not mandatory. The Tribunal found that the appellant had himself admitted to writing letters alleging corruption against railway officials and that the contents of his letters demonstrated misconduct. As such, the competent authority was justified in proceeding against him based on documentary evidence alone. The appellant was granted a personal hearing before the Director Legal Affairs, where he reiterated his stance but failed to provide any substantive defense. The Tribunal held that the requirements of due process were met, and the lack of a full-fledged inquiry did not vitiate the disciplinary action. ----Cited Law: Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 (c) Competency of Authority – Removal from Service – Delegation of Powers: —Validity of Show Cause Notice—Authority of Director Legal Affairs The appellant contended that the show cause notice and dismissal order were issued by an incompetent authority. The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications and found that at the time of the disciplinary proceedings, the Director Legal Affairs was the competent authority under the notification dated 04.06.2001. The notification on which the appellant relied, dated 26.07.2001, was issued after the conclusion of his disciplinary proceedings and was therefore not applicable. It was held that the disciplinary action was taken by the appropriate authority, and the appellant's dismissal was lawful. ----Cited Cases: Establishment Division Notification No. SRO. 581(1)/2000 dated 21.08.2000 Pakistan Railways Notification No. 15(2)/2000 (E.1) dated 04.06.2001 Pakistan Railways Notification No. 831-E/689-1/A(APO-IV) dated 26.07.2001 (d) Government Servant – Conduct Rules – Unauthorised Correspondence with Higher Authorities: —Disciplinary Action for Reporting Corruption—Prevention of Disruption in Government Institutions The appellant claimed that he was merely reporting corruption and exposing fraudulent activities within the railway department. The Tribunal held that while reporting corruption is a civic duty, government servants must adhere to prescribed channels and disciplinary rules. Direct correspondence with the Minister and repeated accusations against senior officials, without following proper procedure, amounted to conduct prejudicial to service discipline. The Tribunal observed that such behavior disrupts organizational efficiency and is an actionable offense under both the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1964. -----Cited Law: Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1964 Establishment Division Instructions dated 21.06.1997 (e) Service Tribunal – Scope of Review – Findings on Appeal: —Dismissal Upheld—No Procedural Infirmity in Disciplinary Proceedings The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant’s claims and upheld the dismissal order. It was concluded that: The appellant's actions constituted misconduct as defined under the applicable laws. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted by the competent authority. Sufficient documentary evidence justified the disciplinary action without requiring a formal inquiry. The appellant was afforded a personal hearing before dismissal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.