2011 SCMR 1403 (PLP)
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Petitioners Versus Mehr ASIF NADEEM — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1403 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Petitioners Versus Mehr ASIF NADEEM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1403 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1403 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1403 (PLP) (DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and others — Petitioners Versus Mehr ASIF NADEEM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaka-ur-Rehman Awan, Additional A.-G. and Zulfiqar Ahmed, Enforcement Officer, Food Deptt. D.G. Khan for Petitioners.
- Ch. M. Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 2011.
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing for the petitioner-department has contended that the respondent was proved guilty of charges in the inquiry, through inquiry report, which was duly maintained by the departmental authority by rejecting his departmental appeal. Further that as the departmental authorities were concurrent on the question of proof of respondent's guilt, therefore, the Tribunal should not have reanalyzed the evidence and to pass the impugned judgment upsetting the penalty of dismissal from service and modifying the same to the reduced penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years. And that' instead the Tribunal should have maintained the penalties of dismissal and recovery etc, as imposed by the departmental authorities.
- 4. After hearing the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been raised by the petitioner-department to justify grant of leave to appeal. Instead, we believe that the Tribunal duly and properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it to re-analyze and re-examine the evidence led during the inquiry to make an independent assessment of the same outside the hierarchy of the department. It is well settled that the Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to re-examine the material, which is before the departmental authorities, and re-assess the same to conclude as to the legality and justification of the penalties imposed. We find the jurisdiction has been fairly exercised by the Tribunal in terms of settled principles of law.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 23-12-2010 of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 2964 of 2009).
S. 4
Service Tribunal, powers of
Scope
Tribunal had jurisdiction to re-examine and re-assess material, which remained before departmental authorities, to conclude as to legality and justification of penalties imposed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
Through the present petition, the petitioner-department seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 23-12-2010, passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing for the petitioner-department has contended that the respondent was proved guilty of charges in the inquiry, through inquiry report, which was duly maintained by the departmental authority by rejecting his departmental appeal. Further that as the departmental authorities were concurrent on the question of proof of respondent's guilt, therefore, the Tribunal should not have reanalyzed the evidence and to pass the impugned judgment upsetting the penalty of dismissal from service and modifying the same to the reduced penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years. And that' instead the Tribunal should have maintained the penalties of dismissal and recovery etc, as imposed by the departmental authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has read out the detailed reasoning of the Tribunal as. contained in paras 6, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment. He has contended that the Tribunal had the authority to re-look into the evidence, inquiry proceedings as well as the inquiry report to make an assessment qua justification of the penalties imposed by the department.
4. After hearing the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been raised by the petitioner-department to justify grant of leave to appeal. Instead, we believe that the Tribunal duly and properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it to re-analyze and re-examine the evidence led during the inquiry to make an independent assessment of the same outside the hierarchy of the department. It is well settled that the Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to re-examine the material, which is before the departmental authorities, and re-assess the same to conclude as to the legality and justification of the penalties imposed. We find the jurisdiction has been fairly exercised by the Tribunal in terms of settled principles of law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./D-3/SC Leave refused.