2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.

Petitioner while working as Area Manager with the respondent corporation was proceeded against under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 and was imposed the penalty of down-grading from the post of Area Manager to Sales Manager.

2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2015, therefore, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at time of passing the order dated 08.01.2015, no independent reason has been assigned by the appellate authority for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders.

5. Arguments heard. Record Perused.

6. It would be in the fitness of things, if the order dated 08.01.2015 regarding rejection of petitioner's appeal is reproduced, which reads as under:- "I am directed to inform that on the basis of recommendations of the Humane Resource Committee, your appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan in its 237th meeting held on 29.12.2014. The Board has rejected the appeal." (Emphasis supplied)

7. From the narrative, it is manifest that the order passed by the appellate authority does not qualify to be a reasoned order as contemplated in Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act; no independent reasons/findings have been given by the appellate authority, which was mandatory. The mandate to provide an appeal is frustrated if the said authority is merely to uphold the order of the subordinate functionary and not to give its independent findings that too backed by reasons. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Secretary Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others (2010 SCMR 511) and Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd., Karachi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Central, Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630=2015 PTD 1100)

8. An Appellate Authority is suppose to consider the following aspects while deciding an appeal:

(a) Questions agitated in the representation/appeal; (b) Order passed by the competent authority; (c) Grounds of appeal raised by the appellant; and (d) After appraisal of the above, independent finding with reasons rendered by the appellate authority.

9. The afore-noted appellate order does not fulfill the criteria set up above as the appellate authority has neither applied its independent mind nor has recorded his reasons while deciding the appeal of the petitioner.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, I find the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the appellate authority to be not maintainable, therefore, the same is set aside. The appeal of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the appellate authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law through a reasoned order after hearing all necessary parties and keeping in view the observations made in this judgment.

11. In the above terms, this petition is accepted. SL/S-25/L Petition allowed.