Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RIAZ and others VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, Lahore and othersHonorable Justice SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAHS.M. Abdul Wahab
2004 P L C (C
2004 P L C (C.S.) 1168
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Falak Sher, JJ
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and others
Versus
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, Lahore and others
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.699 and 1352/L of 2003, decided on 10th June, 2004.
(On appeal from judgment, dated 25‑2‑2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2740 of 2002).
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Reduction in lower stage in time scale‑‑‑Fixing of period‑‑‑Service Tribunal had rightly modified the appeal of civil servant and fixed the period of reduction in lower stage in time scale‑‑‑Judgment passed by Service Tribunal did not suffer from misreading or non‑reading of the material available on record‑‑‑No question of general public importance as contemplated under Art.212(3) of the Constitution was involved‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
S.M. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.699 of 2003).
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.‑G, Punjab for Petitioners (in C.P. 1352/L of 2003).
Date of hearing: 10th June, 2004.
JUDGMENT
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑ Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of above two civil petitions for leave to appeal, which have arisen from a consolidated Judgment, dated 25‑2‑2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 2740 of 2002.
2. Muhammad Riaz petitioner in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 699 of 2003, filed an appeal against the order of the Secretary, Education Department, Government of the Punjab, dated 17‑7‑2000, whereby major penalty of reduction of rank was imposed.
3. The Tribunal, after going through the record and hearing he learned counsel for the parties, partially accepted the appeal of the petitioner with the direction that the penalty of reduction in rank from BS‑18 to BS‑17 shall continue for a period of two years to be effective from 12‑7‑2000.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on query of the Court, the learned Law Officer has frankly conceded that while imposing penalty of reducing to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in time scale, the authority is bound to state the period for which it shall be effective.
5. The, impugned judgment of the Tribunal is entirely in consonance with the law and proper appreciation of the material available. There is no misreading or non‑reading of the material. However, it would be pertinent to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:‑‑‑
"8. The two charges stand proved against the appellant. The question further arises as to the penalty imposed Para. 4.12 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) provides that if a Government servant, is on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in time scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective the authority became oblivious of this provision of law and failed to specify the period for which the penalty was to endure. Considering the circumstances of the case and the charges which stand proved against the appellant, interest of justice warrants that penalty should be continued for a period of two years. Partially accepting the appeal, the penalty of reduction in rank from BS‑18 to BS‑17 shall continue for a period of two years to be effective from 12‑7‑2000. "
6. We further found that the question of general public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is not spelt out in this case.
7. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the .firm opinion that these petitions are without merit and substance; which are hereby dismissed and leave declined.
M.H./M‑116/S Petition dismissed.