Appeal to Service Tribunal

Right of appeal had been provided against final order whether original or appellate made by the Authority with regard to any of the terms and conditions of service

Case of appellants had not been examined for promotion in the light of new Rules

No adverse order had been passed against the appellants and they were not aggrieved from the framing of new Rules

Appellants had failed to substantiate that any terms and conditions of their service had been adversely affected

Service Tribunal had not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the appeal

Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court, in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that she filed appeal to Tribunal after gaining knowledge of impugned notification which was within time

Validity

Employee had filed appeal after a period of nine months from publication of impugned notification in the official gazette

Fact which had not been raised before the lower forum could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for the first time

Employee had not mentioned any exact date or source of knowledge of impugned notification in her appeal to Tribunal

Any order published in the official gazette was to be deemed communicated to everybody

Where rules or law required any order to be communicated personally then such order was to be deemed to be communicated on personal service

Where Rules or law required any order to be published in official gazette then such order was to be deemed to be communicated on the date of its publication

Employee was bound to explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of Court but she had failed to justify delay of six months occurred in filing of appeal to the Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal had committed no illegality while passing the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant although claimed that he had filed representation before the departmental authority which was turned down on 27-7-2018, whereafter appeal was filed before Service Tribunal on 09-8-2018, but it made no difference because the legal proposition that the civil servant is bound to prefer appeal to Service Tribunal within 120 days, reckoned from the date of filing departmental/appeal/review/representation is already settled

Service Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation

Appeal was dismissed.

Civil servant was proceeded under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, after he had already retired from service

Plea raised by authorities was that appeal before Service Tribunal was time barred

Validity

Civil servant remained ill and was advised bed rest by doctor

Delay was of short span therefore, Service Tribunal condoned the period of delay in filing of appeal

Civil servant was punished for involvement in subversive and immoral activities without any supporting substance

Charges against civil servant were vague in nature as it was not specified as to how he remained indulged in subversive activities

No reliable evidence was on the file which was to be considered sufficient for imposing penalty

While imposing penalty, nothing was mentioned with regard to defence version of civil servant

Penalty orders were illegal and based on presumptive act on the part of authorities

Service Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed upon civil servant by authorities

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Employee was inducted into service of serving department through mutual transfer against permanent post on regular basis

Mere fact that lien of employee was kept intact with the parent department did not mean that he was appointed on temporary or ad-hoc basis

Provision of lien in the parent department was provided just for the purpose that in case there was any hardship for a civil servant in the transferee department then he/she might join the service in the parent department

Regular induction of a civil servant made by transfer could not be given any other meaning

Seniority could only be determined from the date of regular appointment made either by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion

Appointments made otherwise could not be considered as regular appointment and not relevant for determination of seniority

Conditions for determination of seniority were regular appointment to the grade or post and continuous service

Induction of employee in the serving department was made through transfer which was one of the recognized modes of regular appointment and there was also continuity in his service

Serving department had to determine seniority of the employee from the date when he joined the post in the said department

Service Tribunal had failed to adhere to the fact that seniority had to be determined from the date of regular appointment and anti-dated/proforma appointment was not a regular appointment

Retrospective effect given to the appointments of respondents did not affect the right of seniority of inducted employee

Dismissal of appeal on the ground that said employee had not challenged the proforma appointment of respondent was illogical

Employee challenged the seniority list dated 22-11-2011 on 18-02-2012 after a period of eighty eight days which was within time

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was based on mis-reading and non-reading of record

Employee was inducted into service on regular basis through transfer order dated 09-09-2000 in the serving department

Seniority of employee should be reckoned from the date of joining of the post i.e. 11-09-2000 and not from the date when his lien came to an end in the parent department

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set aside

Department was directed to determine the seniority of employee from the date of his induction i.e. 11-09-2000 and enter his name at proper place in the seniority list

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Limitation for filing of appeal was ninety days.

When departmental appeal was barred by time, appeal before Service Tribunal, would also be deemed to be barred by time.

Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 provided the remedy of appeal to a civil servant, aggrieved from any final order of departmental authority, whether original or appellate, made by the appellate authority/departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service

Where an appeal, review or representation to such departmental authority was provided under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or any rules against order of the departmental authority, civil servant had to prefer such appeal, review or representation to such departmental authority and on expiry of 90-days from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred, the civil servant could bring an appeal before Tribunal.

Appellant had not challenged any order rather had sought a direction to the department which was not the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Service Tribunal might confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against

Issuance of direction was not the job of Service Tribunal

If there was any departure from law or the appellant wanted the department to do what the law required, he might approach the competent forum having such jurisdiction of issuing direction

Promotion was not a vested right and appellant could not claim promotion as a right

Appellant had not mentioned details of his claim

Claim of appellant was ambiguous and vague

No effective remedy could be granted in favour of appellant

Appeal was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

Strict application of law of limitation in service matters has logic behind it that public interest requires that there should be an end to litigation

Law of limitation provides element of certainty in conduct of human affairs and statutes of limitation and prescription are statutes of peace and repose

Law of limitation does not support sluggish person, who sleeps over his rights and that law would lull a person who slept over his right and Courts must not exercise their inherent power in favour of such a person

Limitation creates right in favour of other party that cannot be taken away by condonation of delay.

Civil servant had remedy of an appeal before Service Tribunal against any final order whether original made by the departmental authority or appellate with regard to terms and conditions of his service.

Petitioner challenged departmental notification regarding his transfer on ground of mala fide, claiming that the same had been issued by the Chief Secretary of the Province without approval of Chief Minister

Validity

Constitutional petition would not lie with regard to the matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants

Petitioner was a civil servant, who had impugned the notification regarding his transfer and posting, for which remedy was provided in terms of R.3 of Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980, read with S.4 of Sindh Civil Service Tribunals Act, 1973

In view of the bar under Art.212 of the Constitution present petition was not maintainable

High Court, however, observed that the ground of limitation, keeping in view of the present petition, might be considered sympathetically by the forum available under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Advocate-General contended that Service Tribunal passed said order without any lawful authority and without jurisdiction; that, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the authorities to implement office memorandum and that Chief Court, while passing the impugned order/judgment did not consider the legal points raised by the authorities and application was not maintainable and was liable to be set aside

Counsel for authorities, could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was declined and judgment of Service Tribunal, was maintained, in circumstances.

Witness whose testimony was recorded during inquiry proceedings presented an application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. praying that he be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal

Validity

Testimony of such witness had already been recorded in the inquiry, and it may well be that he brought certain facts to the attention of the inquiry officer but that did not mean that he could become a party

Status of such witness remained that of an informant and witness only

Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer/ petitioner in the present case, which were between an employer and employee could not be turned into a contentious matter by an outsider, and this was particularly so considering that the petitioner stood terminated from service

Petitioner's rights under Art. 18 of the Constitution may also be involved in the present case

Order passed by Service Tribunal to the extent of impleadment of witness of inquiry proceedings as party, being not warranted, was set aside

Order accordingly.

Witness whose testimony was recorded during inquiry proceedings presented an application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. praying that he be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal

Validity

Testimony of such witness had already been recorded in the inquiry, and it may well be that he brought certain facts to the attention of the inquiry officer but that did not mean that he could become a party

Status of such witness remained that of an informant and witness only

Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer/ petitioner in the present case, which were between an employer and employee could not be turned into a contentious matter by an outsider, and this was particularly so considering that the petitioner stood terminated from service

Petitioner's rights under Art.18 of the Constitution may also be involved in the present case

Order passed by Service Tribunal to the extent of impleadment of witness of inquiry proceedings as party, being not warranted, was set aside

Order accordingly.

Appellant contended that his representation on the same matter filed before issuance of impugned order may be deemed to be an appeal

Validity

Representation made before issuance of impugned order could not be treated as departmental appeal, however, courts should try to provide remedy to the litigants, as far as possible without violating the law

Service Tribunal taking lenient view directed the departmental authority to treat the representation as departmental appeal.

Contention was that valuable right of the appellant was involved and departmental appeal being a procedural technicality, appellant could not be knocked out for non-filing of departmental appeal

Validity

Provision of law which was particularly in negative terms was mandatory

Departmental appeal was not a procedural technicality-Departmental appeal was a mandatory requirement of law.

Plea of judicial officer (petitioner) that he was facing grave hardship on account of his dismissal from service and his Service Appeal had not so far been heard by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, therefore an appropriate observation might be made by the Supreme Court facilitating hearing of his appeal at an early date

Validity

Supreme Court was generally slow in interfering with the administrative matters of High Court

Supreme Court directed judicial officer to file an application before the Chief Justice of High Court for redressal of his grievance

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly with the observation that if such an application was filed, the Supreme Court was sanguine that Chief Justice of High Court might consider passing an appropriate direction facilitating hearing of judicial officer's Service Appeal by the concerned Tribunal at its earliest convenience.

Service Tribunal dismissing appeal as time barred having already decided in one of its earlier orders that appeal was filed within the limitation period

Legality

Departmental authority refused to expunge adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of civil servant

Appeal filed against order of Departmental authority was dismissed as being time barred and also devoid of merits

Contention of civil servant was that Service Tribunal had stated in one of its earlier orders in the present appeal that appeal was filed within time and accordingly admitted, therefore, through impugned order Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order

Validity

Point of limitation was no more alive before the Service Tribunal for adjudication as it had already been decided by the Service Tribunal in favour of the civil servant in one of its earlier orders

Dismissal of civil servant's appeal by Service Tribunal on merits lacked valid reasoning and application of mind

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and appeal was remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law.

Plea of judicial officer (petitioner) that he was facing grave hardship on account of his dismissal from service and his Service Appeal had not so far been heard by the (Punjab) Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, therefore an appropriate observation might be made by the Supreme Court facilitating hearing of his appeal at an early date

Validity

Supreme Court was generally slow in interfering with the administrative matters of High Court

Supreme Court directed judicial officer to file an application before the Chief Justice of High Court for redressal of his grievance

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly with the observation that if such an application was filed, the Supreme Court was sanguine that Chief Justice of High Court might consider passing an appropriate direction facilitating hearing of judicial officer's Service Appeal by the concerned Tribunal at its earliest convenience.

Plea that without challenging original order of promotion of petitioner, respondent's appeal was liable to be dismissed; that respondent's appeal was not competent against findings of having found petitioner fit for promotion as same was not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal; and that before passing impugned order, Service Tribunal had not granted opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider inter alia questions raised by petitioner.

Provisions of S. 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and S. 10 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 being distinct would be construed accordingly.

Limitation for filing appeal against final order being 30 days in absence of any provision providing thereagainst departmental appeal, review or representation

In presence of rules providing departmental appeal, review or representation, aggrieved civil servant could not file appeal before Tribunal without first filing departmental appeal, review or representation and before expiry of period of 90 days of such appeal or review.

From date of communication of order, aggrieved civil servant could prefer either representation to prescribed authority or appeal to Tribunal

In case of non-receipt or non-communication of any decision to civil servant by prescribed authority within 60 days of filing of representation, civil servant could prefer appeal to Tribunal within 30 days of expiry of such period of 60 days i.e., civil servant having 90 days (60 + 30 days) from submission of representation to file appeal before Tribunal

Principles.

Provisions of S. 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and S. 10 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 being distinct would be construed accordingly.

Plea that without challenging original order of promotion of petitioner, respondent's appeal was liable to be dismissed; that respondent's appeal was not competent against findings of having found petitioner fit for promotion as same was not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal; and that before passing impugned order, Service Tribunal had not granted opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider inter alia questions raised by petitioner.

Appellant, after show-cause notice, was awarded penalty of removal from service as per Cl. 23.2.3 of Sindh Seed Corporation Service Rules/Regulations

Governor of the Province, on appeal reinstated appellant in service, but intervening period was treated as "extraordinary leave without pay"

Appellant claimed that he had again applied for extension of' leave for three months, but he could not prove his claim from evidence on record

Contention of appellant that since impugned order of removal from service had been declared as illegal and void and that he had been reinstated in service, he could not be deprived of the salary during which he remained out of job was repelled

Appellant was supposed to resume his duties after expiry of 180 days' leave, but he failed

Appellant, who was simply allowed 180 days leave had gone abroad, despite the fact that he .was not allowed ex-Pakistan leave

Appellant's proceeding abroad without permission amounted to misconduct

Appellant, who could not prove that during intervening period he did not work anywhere to gain financial benefits was not entitled to salary for the period he remained out of service.

Appellant felt aggrieved by orders vide which his representation for confirmation and admission to the test "E" from the date of his temporary/ad hoc promotion was rejected

Validity

Police Rule 13.18, provided no condition attached for passing of Intermediate Class Course for the ,purpose of confirmation as A.S.-I.

Plea of Authorities that appellant was working on ad hoc basis till 23-1-1992, had defeated their action vide which appellant was confirmed as A.S.-I. with effect from 1-10-1991

If appellant was not to be confirmed being on ad hoc basis, then he should not have been confirmed as A.S.-I. till 23-1-1992, which would mean ad hoc promotion of appellant was not considered as an obstacle by the authorities themselves for his confirmation

Appeal was accepted and case was remanded to concerned Authority for reconsideration of the case of appellant for confirmation from the date he was promoted as A.S.-I. subject to the condition that his service record during two years following date of promotion had been found satisfactory.

Appellant who was appointed in BS-14 as Charge Nurse in 1981, due to her satisfactory performance was promoted as Head Nurse, but despite being senior she was not awarded BS-17, whereas her junior was granted said grade

Appellant not only was appointed earlier to respondent, but was also promoted in BS-16 prior to the respondent for her satisfactory performance

Appellant being senior to respondent, was entitled to pro forma promotion to BS-17 on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness

Claim of appellant to pro forma promotion in BS-17, could not be rejected on the ground that her request was time-barred, because in the matter of promotion and pay, question of limitation was not applied

Case of appellant for promotion in BS-17 was from date of promotion when her next junior was promoted

Directions were given to the Authority to consider case of appellant for promotion from the date her next junior was promoted in BS-17

Date of promotion of appellant in BS-16, would be the deciding factor along with well established, formula of seniority-cum-fitness at the relevant time.

Appellant was working in a female college at "S" and her husband who was permanent resident of 'M' was also posted in `M'

Real sister of appellant who was a Lecturer in Government Girls College ' M' left for abroad for Doctorate and her vacancy was filled by posting of respondent who was a contract employee

Appellant claimed her posting at `M' on the vacancy of her sister on the basis of wedlock policy of the Government as her husband was also working at `M'

Request of appellant was not acceded to on the ground that no vacant post of Lecturer was available in `M' whereupon appellant had filed appeal against the Department

Validity

Under provisions of S.9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant was liable to serve anywhere in the Province

No vested right existed for an employee to claim his/her posting against a particular post or station

Wedlock policy for posting and transfer also enjoined that as far as possible husband and wife were to be posted at the same station if both of them were in government service

Question, however would be availability of post

Submission of the Department was that no vacant post of Lecturer was lying at any female college of `M' District

Appeal by appellant, in circumstances had no force

Department in its comments had already undertaken that request of appellant would be considered as and when a vacant post to the subject of appellant would become available in female college at `M'.

Abatement of appeal-Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited when stood privatized by the government, its shares and also its management stood handed over to a company

Appellant who was on the strength of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation till his retirement his presumptive pay had been fixed by the company

Retirement Notification of appellant had also been issued by the said company

Appellant, to all intents and purposes, was employee of said company

Nothing was on record to show that appellant had ever complained against his serving under the company

Appeal filed by appellant stood abated by operation of law, in circumstances.

Appellant was removed from service after issuing him show-cause notice and holding inquiry against him on allegations of omission, commission and irregularities in filling up certain papers and that he was found indulged in serious irregularities relating to train operation and safety

Major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon appellant on basis of fact finding inquiry conducted in violation of rules and procedure and. it was in question answer form

Appellant was not afforded personal hearing in disregard of rulings of the Supreme Court

Order of removal from service passed against appellant was set aside in view of said infirmities and matter was remanded for de novo departmental action as per rules .and strictly in accordance with law within specified period.

Penalties of demotion, stoppage of increment, warning and embargo on any important managerial assignment, were imposed on the appellant on charges of negligence/inefficiency in performance of duty, breach of law and rules and. regulations

Allegation against appellants was that an officer of branch of Bank of which appellants remained Sub-Manager and Chief Manager at the relevant times, had misappropriated huge amount fraudulently and appellants as his superiors did not exercise proper control, exhibited negligence and did not apply rules and regulations of the Bank thereby allowing said officer to continue his activities undetected

Disciplinary proceedings against appellants were mala fide of law as those were initiated by an incompetent Authority

Charges/memo of allegations were not communicated to appellants by Inquiry Committee and show-cause notices under S. 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 were also issued to appellants by incompetent Authority

Fact that proceedings against appellants, were mala fide of law, was sufficient to set aside impugned order against appellants

Order imposing penalties upon appellants, was set aside

Authority would be at liberty to conduct de novo proceedings against appellants in accordance with provisions of law within specified period.

Appellant was dismissed from service after issuing him show-cause notice and holding inquiry against him on the allegation that he carried passengers without tickets by taking money from them

Appellant was not afforded personal hearing and major punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed upon him on basis of fact finding inquiry conducted in violation of Rules and procedure and it was in question and answer form

In view of said infirmities, order of removal passed against appellant was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in service

Authority could initiate fresh proceedings against appellant in accordance with law within specified period.