2001 SCMR 2018 (PLP)
Messrs HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAHID MASUD MALIK and others‑‑ ‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 2018 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAHID MASUD MALIK and others‑‑ ‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 2018 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 2018 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 2018 (PLP) (Messrs HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAHID MASUD MALIK and others‑‑ ‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ajmal Kamal Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑12‑2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. I17(R)C/E of 2000 and 1886(R) of 1999). (a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.16‑‑‑Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings‑‑‑Difference and distinction‑‑‑Departmental proceedings are different and distinct from criminal charge which if has been levelled simultaneously against civil servant. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2‑A & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Findings of Service Tribunal based upon findings recorded by other forums‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Acquittal from criminal charge‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Employee of Banking Company was dismissed from service‑‑‑Labour Court reinstated the employee and Criminal Court acquitted him of the charge‑‑ After insertion of S.2‑A, in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 matter was transferred to Service Tribunal and the Tribunal on the basis of findings recorded by Labour Court as well as by the Criminal Court allowed appeal of the employee and he was reinstated in service‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Instead of basing its decision on finding of a forum which had no jurisdiction to decide the case, the Service Tribunal should have examined the case independently on the basis of material collected during departmental inquiry including show cause notice and inquiry report‑‑‑Conclusion drawn by Criminal Court would have no bearing on the departmental proceedings as the latter had to be decided independently ‑‑‑Where the Tribunal had not applied its independent mind, such findings of the Tribunal were not sustainable‑‑‑Petition for leave to .appeal was converted into appeal, and judgment passed by Service Tribunal was set aside‑‑‑Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh. Respondents in person.
Judgment & Decree
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the impugned judgment, dated 9‑12‑2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. It is noteworthy that the Service Tribunal had based its judgment on the findings of Presiding Officer Labour Court recorded while disposing of application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the respondent, the order of the Criminal Court acquitting the respondent‑employee from the criminal charge has also been considered as one of the factor for his reinstatement. It is well‑settled that the departmental proceedings are different and distinct from the criminal charge which if has been levelled simultaneously against an employee. Likewise the Tribunal may have not taken into consideration the findings recorded in favour of the, respondent by the Labour Court because after the amendment in the Civil Servants Act by means of section 2‑A for the purpose of the Service Tribunal the respondent employee had been treated to be a civil servant with a right to approach Service Tribunal for his redressal of grievance. Therefore, the Service Tribunal will examine his case independently on the basis of material collected during the departmental inquiry including show cause notice and Inquiry Report etc., instead of basing its decision on the finding of a forum which firstly had no jurisdiction to decide the case secondly any finding recorded by the criminal Court regarding criminal charges against an employee arising out of the same transaction because no conclusion drawn in this behalf by a Criminal Court will have any bearing on the departmental proceedings which ought to have decided independently. It may be noted that in fact impugned orders have not been passed by the Service Tribunal by applying its judicial mind and had disposed of the appeals in a mechanical manner just observing that as Presiding Officer of Labour Court had recorded finding in favour of the respondent and the Criminal Court has also acquitted him of the charge, therefore, he is ordered to be reinstated. Such findings, however, are not sustainable in law thus deserves interference by this Court. As a result of above discussion, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. Both the cases are remanded to the Federal Service for decision of the appeals expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months preferably. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑38/S Case remanded.