2002 PLP 775 (SCMR)
ZAFAR YASIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 775 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR YASIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 775 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 775 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 775 (SCMR) (ZAFAR YASIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haliz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1999.
- 2. He farther submitted that if the cause is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to specify the period in terms of Fundamental Rule 29, the appellant will be satisfied and, in that eventuality, will attend to the cause thereafter, if so required. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate -on‑Record representing the respondents, did not controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 3‑A(2)(b) & 4‑‑‑Fundamental Rules, R.29‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑-‑Appeal‑‑‑Service Tribunal awarded penalty of reduction in time scale to the civil servant by three stages, but did not specify the period from which it had to operate‑‑‑Chairman of Tribunal, in exercise of powers under S.3‑A(2)(b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, after having noticed this omission on the part of both the Members of Tribunal, directed the Authority to take into consideration the omission and pass an appropriate order under Fundamental Rules, F.R.29‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal was bound to specify the period for which penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale. had to operate in line with Fundamental Rules, R.29‑‑Supreme Court remanded the case to Service Tribunal to do the needful within two months.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.‑‑‑After arguing this appeal for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to the .last paragraph of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal. which reads as under:‑‑ "
4. Before parting with this judgment, the impugned order of penalty suffers'from legal lacuna, as specific period for which reduction by three stages in the time scale has to operate, has not been mentioned, and it is violative of the Fundamental Rule 29, as the appellant cannot be deprived for indefinite period, but for a specific period. Since this point has not peen taken by any Member, therefore, it is beyond my scope as both learned Members have not taken (notice) of this legal infrmity. I would, therefore, suggest to the departmental authority to take into consideration this glaring illegality and pass an appropriate order under Fundamental Rule 29 as deem fit." According to him, the illegality relatable to failure on the part of both the learned Members of the Tribunal having been noticed by learned Chairman, the 'order of the Tribunal' by him in terms of clause (b) to subsection (2) of section 3‑A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is not in order.
2. He farther submitted that if the cause is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to specify the period in terms of Fundamental Rule 29, the appellant will be satisfied and, in that eventuality, will attend to the cause thereafter, if so required. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate -on‑Record representing the respondents, did not controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. We are inclined to the view that the Learned Tribunals could have resolved the question regarding the specification of the period for which penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale has to operate in the case of the appellant in line with Fundamental Rule
29. Failure on the part of the learned Tribunal to do the needful in the appeal of appellant‑Zafar Yasin, can be remedied even now by remitting the matter to the Tribunal for its disposal anew; within a period of two months from today. Order accordingly.
4. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. S.A.K./Z-10/S Case remanded.