1994 PLP 245 (SCMR)
SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O., KHUSHAB and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAVED MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 245 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O., KHUSHAB and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAVED MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 245 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 245 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 245 (SCMR) (SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O., KHUSHAB and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAVED MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Punishment imposed upon civil servant was reduction to a lower stage and recovery of loss of specified amount‑‑‑Service Tribunal modifying such punishment to reversion to lower post for a period of one year plus whatever amount had been recovered from civil servant till date of hearing‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal having itself come to conclusion that penalty upon civil servant had been imposed by an incompetent authority, it erred in only modifying the punishment imposed upon civil servant‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine such question.
- Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.,
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 7‑1‑1993 in Appeal No. 193(R) of 1992).
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The respondent was an officiating Assistant Postmaster in Grade‑
9. During an audit of his office it was found that an amount of Rs.13,51,600 had been misappropriated. Departmental proceedings were started against him and he was. served with a charge‑sheet. After a regular inquiry the following punishments were imposed upon him: (1) reduction to a lower stage by five steps in time‑scale of Grade‑7; and (2) recovery of loss in the sum of Rs.3,92,000 through deductions from his pay. He filed a departmental appeal but it was not decided. He then preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal partly accepted the appeal in the following terms: "Under the aforementioned facts, we find that punishment imposed on the appellant was not fully justified and we partially accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of punishment and modify it to the punishment of reduction/reversion to a lower post in time scale of B‑7 for a period of one year (plus whatever amount has been recovered from him till the date of hearing) and direct the Department to stop any future recovery." Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal Postal Department seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that according to the findings of the learned Tribunal itself that the penalty upon respondent had been imposed by an incompetent authority. In this context, reference has been made to the following extract from the judgment of the learned Tribunal: "The learned counsel and the representative of the respondent Department had mentioned that since the appellant had been holding the substantive post of B‑7 and not B‑9, Senior Postmaster, Khushab was competent to take disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment on him. But from the punishments awarded and appellant's reduction to B‑7 indicated that initially he was holding B‑
9. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was . correct and accordingly the competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings and award punishment was Deputy/Asstt. Director General (Admn.) and not the Senior Postmaster." It is stated that in view of this position the learned Tribunal erred in only modifying the punishment imposed upon the respondent.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. AA./S‑779/S Leave granted.