1990 PLP 1708 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1708 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1708 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1708 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1708 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑ Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 1990.
- 3. Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant's dismissal order and also the order directing recovery of the loss was set aside, the Tribunal could not have denied him the back benefits, because it was for no fault of his own the appellant remained away from duty.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 1‑3‑1983 passed in Case No.222/1704 of 1982). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether, while setting aside order of dismissal of civil servant, Service Tribunal could deny him benefits of his salary etc., and direct the period to be treated as extraordinary leave. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑
‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 16‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212‑‑‑Denial of benefits of salary to civil servant‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Service Tribunal. in adopting test of proof, beyond reasonable doubt in departmental enquiry and on that test setting aside dismissal order`o‑f civil servant, had shown leniency, not warranted by law‑‑‑Service Tribunal in that background. could on the facts of case, deny to civil servant back benefits in its discretion‑‑‑Material on record justified exercise of discretion in that manner‑‑‑No material was brought out for interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed m circumstances. Respondents: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether while setting aside the order of dismissal of the appellant the Service Tribunal could deny him the benefit of his salary etc., and direct the period to be treated as extraordinary leave.
2. The, appellant was proceeded against departmentally and dismissed from service and also an order of recovering Rs.16,300 was passed against him. It was upheld in appeal but set aside by the Service Tribunal on an appeal which held as hereunder:‑‑ "In these circumstances I hold that the Enquiry Officer or the Departmental authorities have not been able to prove the allegations against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of this analysis I hold that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the damage caused to the Forest produce and the charges levelled against him are not proved. In granting the relief, however, the Tribunal observed as hereunder:‑‑ "In view of the detained analysis, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The appellant shall be reinstated into service but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re‑instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs."
3. Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant's dismissal order and also the order directing recovery of the loss was set aside, the Tribunal could not have denied him the back benefits, because it was for no fault of his own the appellant remained away from duty.
4. As regards the powers of the Service Tribunal or authority, setting aside the dismissal order, the following provision exists in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974:‑‑ "
16. Pay.‑‑ A civil servant appointed to a post or grade shall be entitled, in accordance with the rules, to the pay sanctioned for such post or grade: Provided that, when the appointment is made on a current charge basis or by way of additional charge, his pay shall be fixed in the prescribed manner: Provided further that where a civil servant has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank, he shall, in the event of the order of dismissal, removal from service or reduction in rank being set aside, be entitled to such arrears of pay, as the, authority setting aside the order may determine."
5. Apart from the power possessed by the Tribunal, we find that in adopting the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt in departmental enquiry and on that test setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant, the Tribunal had shown a leniency, not warranted by law. In that background it could, on the facts of the case, deny him the back benefits. It was within its discretion. There appears material on the record to sustain the exercise of discretion in that manner.
6. No ground is made out for our interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1348/S Appeal dismissed.