Service Tribunal
Service Tribunal legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Only limitation on the power of the Tribunal is that it must ensure and meet the acid test of reasonableness and judiciousness
Astuteness of discretion in the judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner, in aid of justice, rather than perpetuating injustice.
Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and in the appellate stage, the entire matter is reopened to determine whether the order or judgment appealed against is in accordance with the law or contains inherent defects that need to be rectified within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal to attain finality
While exercising the appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Service Tribunal Acts, the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by the parties.
The factual controversy with regard to the recruitment process and verification of documents germane to the appointments are required to be resolved by the Service Tribunal, being the first fact-finding forum in service matters
The Service Tribunal exercised exclusive jurisdiction in the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants and for the matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto
The fundamental philosophy of the appellate jurisdiction is to ensure checks and balances by means of re-evaluation and re-examination of the orders passed by the lower fora or authority
The wisdom of setting up a Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution was to deal with and decide matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants
The Service Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against and for the purpose of deciding any appeal it is deemed to be a civil court
The astuteness of discretion in judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner in aid of justice.
The factual controversy with regard to the recruitment process and verification of documents germane to the appointments are required to be resolved by the Service Tribunal, being the first fact-finding forum in service matters
The Service Tribunal exercised exclusive jurisdiction in the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants and for the matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto
The fundamental philosophy of the appellate jurisdiction is to ensure checks and balances by means of re-evaluation and re-examination of the orders passed by the lower fora or authority
The wisdom of setting up a Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution was to deal with and decide matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants
The Service Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against and for the purpose of deciding any appeal it is deemed to be a civil court
The astuteness of discretion in judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner in aid of justice.
No court has the jurisdiction to grant arbitrary relief without the support of any power granted by the Constitution or the law
Any relief granted on the touchstone of subjective standards of leniency and compassion, rather than the law, cannot be sustained
Any such subjective decision disregards the importance of institutional autonomy; which rests on well-thought out values, ethos, policies and internal disciple of the institution.
No court has the jurisdiction to grant arbitrary relief without the support of any power granted by the Constitution or the law
Any relief granted on the touchstone of subjective standards of leniency and compassion, rather than the law, cannot be sustained
Any such subjective decision disregards the importance of institutional autonomy; which rests on well-thought out values, ethos, policies and internal disciple of the institution.
Petitioner (Deputy Director/BPS-18) filed constitutional petition against his suspension order contending that impugned order could not be termed as an order passed within the terms and conditions of his service
Plea of the petitioner was that previously he invoked constitutional jurisdiction against the respondent/Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA), so with mala fide intention and out of personal vendetta SBCA proceeded against him
Validity
Plea /analogy of the petitioner was misconceived as the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings fell within the ambit of expression terms and condition of service of the public servant
Final decision against the petitioner was yet to be taken by the respondent/SBCA and the petitioner would have an opportunity of hearing before impugned final action, if any, taken against him by the Competent Authority of SBCA
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
When a Tribunal decides any question of law by dint of its judgment, the said judgment is always treated as being in rem, and not in personam.
Sometimes little negligence or inefficiency may cause serious disaster and stern end results, therefore, at the time of appraising any act of misconduct contrasted with the penalty imposed by the management/department, the Service Tribunal is obligated to re-evaluate the evidence all-inclusive and then the inquiry findings with recommendations.
Sometimes little negligence or inefficiency may cause serious disaster and stern end results, therefore, at the time of appraising any act of misconduct contrasted with the penalty imposed by the management/department, the Service Tribunal is obligated to re-evaluate the evidence all-inclusive and then the inquiry findings with recommendations.
Civil servant, after departmental proceedings was awarded punishment of reduction to four stages in pay scale and recovery of loss caused to government
Service Tribunal allowed appeal filed by civil servant and penalty imposed by authorities was set aside
Validity
Penalty was proportionate and commensurate with gravity of offence considering amount of loss caused to public funds on account of extreme negligence and inefficiency on the part of civil servants and the same was substantial which ran into millions
Service Tribunal wrongly relied upon the philosophy of basing punishment on the concept of retribution which according to the Tribunal could either to be through method of deterrence or reformation but such concept was neither relevant nor apt in the matter
Power of Tribunal to interfere in quantum of punishment was to be carefully exercised with utmost caution, care and circumspection
If such power was exercised, elaborate, cogent and legally sustained reasons were to be recorded
Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was devoid of any such reasoning let alone cogent or logical or legally sustainable
Service Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction carelessly and casually
Principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in its various pronouncements escaped notice of Service Tribunal
Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and punishment imposed by departmental authorities was restored
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Civil servant, after departmental proceedings was awarded punishment of reduction to four stages in pay scale and recovery of loss caused to government
Service Tribunal allowed appeal filed by civil servant and penalty imposed by authorities was set aside
Validity
Penalty was proportionate and commensurate with gravity of offence considering amount of loss caused to public funds on account of extreme negligence and inefficiency on the part of civil servants and the same was substantial which ran into millions
Service Tribunal wrongly relied upon the philosophy of basing punishment on the concept of retribution which according to the Tribunal could either to be through method of deterrence or reformation but such concept was neither relevant nor apt in the matter
Power of Tribunal to interfere in quantum of punishment was to be carefully exercised with utmost caution, care and circumspection
If such power was exercised, elaborate, cogent and legally sustained reasons were to be recorded
Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was devoid of any such reasoning let alone cogent or logical or legally sustainable
Service Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction carelessly and casually
Principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in its various pronouncements escaped notice of Service Tribunal
Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and punishment imposed by departmental authorities was restored
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Under S. 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Service Tribunal enjoyed powers to modify any Appellate order but such power was to be exercised carefully, judiciously and with great circumspection by assigning cogent, valid and legally sustainable reasons justifying such modification.
Under S. 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Service Tribunal enjoyed powers to modify any Appellate order but such power was to be exercised carefully, judiciously and with great circumspection by assigning cogent, valid and legally sustainable reasons justifying such modification.
Respondent being superintendent in the subordinate judiciary was promoted as Civil Judge against the departmental promotion quota
Appellant filed appeal that he was senior and more experienced than the respondent
Service Tribunal observed that nothing was available on record to show as to why the Selection Board ignored the appellant for promotion as Civil Judge however opinion of Selection Board could not be substituted and dismissed the appeal
Validity
When Service Tribunal had reached to the conclusion that there was no reason for ignoring the appellant for promotion, it should have accepted the appeal and cured the illegality committed by the Authority
Service Tribunal on appeal might confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against
If order appealed was found issued on the recommendations made arbitrarily by the Selection Board, Service Tribunal was empowered to set aside, vary or modify the said order
When Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that employee had been superseded without any justification then mere recommendations made by the Selection Board were not hurdle in the way of Service Tribunal to perform its legal duty
Civil servant had vested right to approach the proper forum for redressal of grievances
When any Court or Tribunal was of the opinion that some illegality or perversity was found in the order impugned before it, said Court or Tribunal was bound to cure such illegality or perversity
Findings recorded by the Service Tribunal were against the spirit of law which could not be upheld
Post of Civil Judge was sensitive in character in the judicial system and selection against such post in an arbitrary manner was alarming for the cause of administration of justice
Appellant and respondent were promoted in BS-16 with effect from 27-02-2002
Appellant before his promotion was working as Senior Scale Stenographer, BS-15, whereas private respondent was working as Stenographer, BS-12
Appellant joined service in judicial department prior to the respondent
Seniority had to be determined according to the Rules
No provision was available in the relevant Rules that an incumbent by acquiring LL.B degree would become senior to the others
Appellant was eligible for promotion when selection was made and he could not be considered junior to respondent merely on the ground that respondent had acquired requisite degree of LL.B prior to the appellant
Post of Stenographer was upgraded to BS-16 with effect from 27-02-2002
When an employee was senior in lower grade to the other and both were promoted in the next higher grade then the employee who was senior in lower grade was to retain his seniority
Appellant senior in lower grade was also senior to respondent after promotion in the equal grade
Post in question was to be filled in on the basis of merit and not on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness
Selection Board had not considered the relevant factors requisite for determining the merit
Seniority was not the sole criterion to determine the merit but same was considered as one of the relevant factors for determining the merit and could not be ignored entirely
When all other credentials/qualities were equal then seniority would play vital role in the determination of merit
Credentials of contestants in the present case were equal
Nothing adverse was available against the appellant
Appointment of respondent was made without adopting the proper course and appellant had been ignored without any reason
Court should not preempt the jurisdiction of Selection Board
Matter was remanded to the High Court by the Supreme Court with the direction to place the matter before the respective Selection Board for re-examination
Selection Board/Authority while revisiting the matter was to look into all the aspects of the case
Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.
Second review petition before Tribunal not maintainable.
Second review petition before Tribunal not maintainable.
Matter concerning fitness of civil servant for promotion was beyond the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.
"Service Tribunal", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124932449
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Service Tribunal"
1993 S C M R 138
CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2019 P L C (C
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN, EXCISE CONSTABLE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (COMPETENT AUTHORITY) MIRPUR AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 8 others
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)2004 P L C (C
BASHARAT HUSSAIN and 4 others Versus MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ KHAN and 3 others
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)1993 S C M R 582
WAPDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAHOOR AHMED — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1980 Supreme Court 38
AMANULLAH KHAN-Appellant Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL (FEDERAL) AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- Arts. 212(2) & 185(3) read with Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4-Government servant-Removal from service-Appeal Appellant withdrawing his petition for special leave to appeal and filing appeal before Service Tribunal when cl. (2) of Art. 212 not amended-Appellant, held, right in withdrawing his petition before Supreme Court with a view to seek his remedy before Service Tribunal and Service Tribunal erred in holding such appeal as incompetent. Civil service-Appeal (civil).2003 P L C (C
EJAZ AHMED WARRAICH Versus PRESIDENT OF U.B.L. and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1980 P L C 220
Kh. SADDAR‑UD‑DIN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF A J & K
Court: Service Tribunal Azad J & K2003 S C M R 1264
EJAZ AHMED WARRAICH — Petitioner Versus PRESIDENT OF U.B.L. and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2002 P L C (C
ASHFAQ AHMED Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)2002 P L C (C
G.M., NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan