DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, BAHAWALPUR and others vs KHALID MEHMOOD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a government employee, faced a major penalty of compulsory retirement due to allegations of misappropriation of funds. The Punjab Service Tribunal had modified this penalty, effectively setting the respondent free and requiring him to deposit only a portion of the alleged misappropriated amount. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal acted without lawful justification in modifying the major penalty, ignoring the factual findings established by the departmental authority, and failing to address the severity of the accusations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal possessed the authority to set aside a major penalty imposed after the completion of mandatory disciplinary formalities under the relevant rules. The Court further ordered that the operation of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal remain suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal, given the nature of the service matter involved.
- Can the Punjab Service Tribunal set aside a major penalty imposed after the completion of mandatory formalities under the Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 without lawful justification?
- To what extent can a Service Tribunal interfere with factual findings determined by a departmental authority in disciplinary matters?
- Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- It is, inter alia contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon respondent cannot be considered as harsh and learned Punjab Service Tribunal has transgressed its authority while modifying the major penalty without any rhyme and reason and directed the respondent to deposit an amount of R s . 81,570 from the total alleged misappropriated amount of Rs,4, 07,850 without lawful justification. It is next contended that in fact no penalty whatsoever has been imposed and the respondent has been set free by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal which could not have been done in view of severe accusation.
2. Respondent is present in person and has supported the judgment impugned and contended that the verdict given by the Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law as no offence whatsoever has been committed by him and the amount in question has already been deposited.
It is further submitted that joining report has been submitted but order of the Punjab Service Tribunal is yet to be implemented.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question as to whether the major penalty of retirement could have been set aside imposed after completion of all the mandatory formalities as envisaged under the Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by the Punjab Service Tribunal without any lawful justification by ignoring the factual findings of departmental authority.
' The operation of impugned judgment shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal which may be fixed at some early date being a service matter.