Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID SIDDIQUE VS Respondent: SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERMENT OF, PUNJAB, LAHORE
2000 P L C (C
2000 P L C (C.S.) 1107
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ
KHALID SIDDIQUE
versus
SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT GOVERMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
Civil Appeal No. 1291 of 1995, decided on 17th December, 1999.
(From the judgment/order dated 17‑4‑1994 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. Lahore, in Appeal No.348 of 1991).
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 3‑‑t‑Appeal ‑‑‑Constitution of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Such Bench of Service Tribunal comprising the Chairman and one member heard the appeal but before order could be passed one member of the Bench retired and the order was passed by the Chairman of the Bench long after such retirement of the member‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bench having been constituted to hear and decide an appeal, such Bench alone, for the purpose of that appeal, could be deemed to be Tribunal‑‑‑On the retirement of one of the two members of the Bench, the Tribunal so constituted would cease to exist, with the result that the decision by the remaining member could not be considered as that of the Tribunal‑‑ Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for hearing the appeal afresh.
Appellant in person.
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th December, 1999.
JUDGMENT
KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment dated 17‑4‑1994 of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby appellant's service appeal was partly allowed and consequently the penalty of reducing him to three stages in his time scale was "altered to reducing him only by one stage (a lower stage) in his time scale":
2. The appellant was posted as Taxation Officer at Bahawalnagar when charge‑sheet dated 11‑4‑1990 alongwith a statement of allegations was issued to him charging him with misconduct alleged therein, the appellant submitted his reply which was followed by a departmental inquiry by an Inquiry Officer who found the appellant guilty of the misconduct; the appellant was then served with a show‑cause notice requiring him to show cause as to why the proposed penalty may not be imposed upon him, he once again submitted his explanation, however, by order dated 3‑12‑1990 he was awarded the major penalty of "reduction in time scale by three stages". Aggrieved by the order the appellant filed a review petition which was rejected on 15‑6‑1991. Consequently the appellant approached the Punjab Service Tribunal in appeal which was disposed of by the judgment now impugned.
3. The appellant at the very outset challenged the validity of the impugned judgment on the ground that it was not rendered by a properly constituted Tribunal, inasmuch as, while the appeal was heard by a Bench of the Tribunal comprising of the Chairman and Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan, a member, the judgment was recorded only by the Chairman, as Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan had retired on 31‑12‑1993 before the announcement of the judgment on 17‑4‑1994. The appellant appears to be right. A Bench comprising of the Chairman and member having been constituted to hear and decide an appeal, such Bench alone, for the purposes of that appeal, could be deemed to be a Tribunal and, therefore, on the retirement of one of the two members of the Bench the Tribunal so constituted would cease to exist, with the result that the decision by the remaining member cannot be considered as that of the Tribunal. In the present case since Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan who was a member of the Bench which was constituted to hear appellant's appeal, retired much before the announcement of the judgment, recorded by the Chairman alone, such judgment cannot be regarded as that of the Tribunal. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the learned Tribunal for the hearing of the appellant's appeal afresh.
4. The appellant has urged before us other grounds as well, but as we are remanding the case he will be free to take up these before the learned Tribunal.
M.B.A./K‑1/S Case remanded.