Latest news with #AbusarGhaffary

Business Recorder

LHC explains how a govt servant absent from duty can be sacked

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a government servant who remains absent from his duty for less than one year cannot be removed from service without cogent reasons. The court said Section 4 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA) manifests that where absence from duty is for more than one year and same is proved, the authority has no option but to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service. However, where absence from duty is less than one year, the authority under Section 4 of PEECA has discretion to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service supported by cogent justification, in accordance with principles of proportionality, structured discretion and administrative fairness, the court added. The court passed this order on a petition of a government employee, Abusar Ghaffary, who was working as computer operator with the Punjab Emergency Services Department. The court allowed the petition and reinstating the petitioner into service and set aside impugned order and observed that no reasons are recorded to impose major penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. The court; however, held that the petitioner will not be entitled for back benefits as per the law. The petitioner's counsel submitted that under Section 7 (f) (ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence of duty is less than one year, major penalty including removal or dismissal from service cannot be imposed. Admittedly, the regular inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with under Section 5 (1) of the PEEDA and petitioner was removed from service under Section 4 (1) (b) (v) of PEEDA for being absent from duty for 63 days, the court observed. Where the regular inquiry is dispensed with, the procedure prescribed under section 7 of PEEDA is to be followed, the court added. The court also observed that the respondent keeping in view the principles of proportionality has not exercised discretion in structured manner. No doubt, in the impugned order, the petitioner's previous service record and penalties have been referred to; however, the said record was neither confronted to the petitioner nor petitioner was charge sheeted in show-cause notice on account of poor previous service record, the court added. The court said, when petitioner was already penalised previously, his current removal from service order on the basis of said previous penalties will amount to double jeopardy. The court; however, observed that the petitioner's reinstatement shall be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority regarding the imposing of penalty against the petitioner, which must commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and after giving cogent reasons. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025