1996 PLP (CS (PLC(CS))

M.L. Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Motianwala, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1(in both C.Ps.) Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1995. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑We propose to dispose of above noted two petitions for leave to appeal by this common judgment as the questions of facts and laws argued in both the petitions are identical. The petitioner, Chairman Pakistan Railways, is seeking leave to appeal in both the petitions, against the order of Federal Service Tribunal dated 24‑8‑1994 whereby the learned Service Tribunal accepted the service appeals of the respondents (Nos.1) in the above petitions and set aside the order of the competent Authority imposing minor punishment of withholding promotion for one year. Relevant facts of the cases are that Aftab Ahmed Khan, Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Karachi (respondent No. 1 in C.P. 510/94) and Muhammad Yousaf Soomro, Asstt. Director, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad (respondent No.l in C.P. 511 of 1994) were charge sheeted on 31‑7‑1991 with identical allegations which were as follow‑.‑ "(1) While conducting station inspections with special reference to Ghotki Station, you could not detect the non‑observance by the station staff of the procedure laid down in para. 7.1 of the Appendix to the Station Working Rules regarding emergency operation. . (2) There was apparent general laxity in the working of your branch which you failed to control and overlooked the unauthorized methods employed by your staff to circumvent the Signalling System. (3) You also failed to ensure that your subordinates performed their assigned duties effectively and efficiently." Both the respondents contested the allegations and filed their reply. However, after holding enquiry both were found, guilty and negligent and accordingly, minor punishment of withholding the promotion for one year was imposed in respect of both the respondents. On appeal, the learned Service Tribunal set aside the order of competent Authority in both the cases against which now the leave is sought by the petitioner. ' It is an admitted position in the cases that both the respondents in the above petitions were charge‑sheeted in connection with an accident at Ghotki Railway Station involving `Tezgam', which took place on 8‑6‑1991. The learned Tribunal found that respondent No.1 in Civil Petition No. 510 of 1994 had left Sukkur on 8‑5‑1991 i.e. one month before the accident which took place on 8‑6‑1991. In the other case, namely Civil Petition No.511 of 1994, the learned Tribunal held that respondent No.l had left the place 3 months before the accident which occurred on 8‑6‑1991. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, held that as the two respondents in the above petitions had left the Railway Station long before the accident, they could not be held responsible for the accident and accordingly, the order of competent authority imposing minor punishment of withholding promotion for one year, was not legal and valid order. The order passed by the learned Tribunal is unexceptionable and even otherwise, we find that no question of law of public importance arises in these two cases so as to attract our jurisdiction. Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./C‑161/S Leave refused.