Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMANDANT, 502, E.M.E. CENTRAL WORKSHOP, RAWALPINDI VS Respondent: NO. M.E-19862 LDC AYUB HUSSAIN
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S.) 449
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Zia Mahmood Mirza, Muhammad Munir Khan and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ
THE COMMANDANT, 502, E.M.E. CENTRAL WORKSHOP, RAWALPINDI and others
versus
No. M.E‑19862 LDC AYUB HUSSAIN
Civil Petition No. 252 of 1995, decided on 27th November, 1995.
(On appeal dated 19th March, 1995 from the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 407‑R of 1994).
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Removal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal converted penalty of removal from service into "reduction to three lower stages in his time scale for period of three years without cumulative effect"‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal had given good reasons for awarding lesser punishment to civil servant‑‑‑Service Tribunal had found that quarrel between civil servant and Head Clerk constituting misconduct was a sudden affair and both of them had subsequently compromised and gave written assurance of good behaviour in future‑‑‑Service Tribunal also took note of the fact that respondent had already put in seven years' service in Department and that penalty of removal from service was somewhat harsh‑‑‑Service Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was fully competent to modify and reduce penalty awarded by Departmental Authorities‑‑‑Penalty imposed by Service Tribunal was, also one of major penalties provided in Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑Impugned order of Service Tribunal in awarding lesser punishment to respondent was quite just and fair in circumstances which neither suffered from any legal infirmity nor . jurisdictional error‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Raja Muhammad Bashir, Dy. A.‑G. and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 27th November, 1995.
JUDGMENT
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑The Commandant, 502, EME Central Workshop, Rawalpindi and four others have filed this petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19‑3‑1995 whereby appeal of the respondent employee has been partly allowed and the penalty of his removal from service has been converted into that of "reduction to three lower stages in his time scale for a period of three years with effect from 7‑3‑1994 without cumulative effect".
2. Respondent, an L.D.C. in 502 Central Workshop, EME, Rawalpindi quarrelled with his Head Clerk, physically assaulted him and hit him on his face. An enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and consequently he was removed from service with effect from 7‑3‑1994. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which as stated above was partly allowed in the aforesaid terms vide the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney‑General for the petitioners. His grievance is that the respondent having committed an act of grave indiscipline by physically assaulting the Head Clerk was rightly removed from service and the Service Tribunal was not justified in reducing the punishment awarded to him in appropriate proceedings. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Tribunal has given good reasons for awarding lesser punishment to the respondent. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal that the quarrel between the respondent and the Head Clerk was a sudden affair. Both of them had subsequently compromised and gave a written assurance of good behaviour in future. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the respondent had already put in 7 A years' service in the Department and in the circumstances, the penalty of removal from service was somewhat harsh. Learned Deputy Attorney General has not controverted any of these observations/findings recorded by the Tribunal nor is it denied that the learned Tribunal in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction was fully competent to modify and reduce the penalty awarded by the departmental authorities. We also find that the penalty imposed by the learned Tribunal is also one of the major penalties provided in the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
4. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the Service Tribunal in awarding lesser punishment to the respondent is quite just and fair and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.
A.A./C‑181/S Petition dismissed.