NASEER-UD-DIN and another vs SECRETARY FOOD, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHROE and another
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals. The core legal question addressed is whether an authorized officer, who subsequently assumes the role of an 'authority' within the department, remains competent to act in that capacity regarding the same disciplinary or service matters. Relying on the precedent established in Civil Appeals Nos. 631-637 of 2003, the Supreme Court held that an authorized officer cannot act as an authority at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Service Tribunal, and remanded the cases to the Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab, for a fresh decision. The Court directed that the petitioners be afforded an opportunity of hearing and that the issue of back-benefits be contingent upon the outcome of the fresh decision by the competent authority. The principle laid down is that the roles of an authorized officer and an authority must remain distinct to ensure procedural fairness in departmental proceedings.
- Can an authorized officer act as an authority at a subsequent stage of departmental proceedings?
- What is the consequence when an authorized officer assumes the role of an authority in the same service matter?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Listed petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgments dated 16th July, 2002 and 13th December, 2002 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal.
Lahore whereby Service Appeals filed by the petitioners have been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed that in Civil Appeals Nos.631-637 of 2003, raising identical question in respect of co-employees, learned Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar) has authored the judgment being its member, has remanded the cases vide judgment dated 31st May, 2004, therefore, he stated that these cases as well may be remanded to the Department for considering the same in accordance with observation made in the said judgment.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General under instructions conceded to the request so made by the petitioner's counsel.
4. It may be noted that in appeals referred to hereinabove, the question of competency of an authorized officer to act as an authority, at a later stage, on having been appointed as Secretary was considered and finally it was held that in such situation, authorized officer cannot act as authority at a subsequent stage and in view of such conclusion, cases were remanded to the incumbent Secretary for decision. Concluding para. From the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The cases of the appellants are remanded to the Secretary, ' Food Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore who shall decide the same in accordance with law after affording them opportunity of hearing. The question of grant or otherwise of the back- benefits to the appellants will depend upon the result of .a fresh decision by the competent authority. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
' Because the identical question is involved in this case, therefore, following the above dictum, instant petitions are converted into appeals, and allowed, as a result whereof impugned judgments dated 16th July 2002 and 13th December 2002 are set aside and cases,are remanded to the Secretary Food Department, Government of Punjab, for decision of the cases of petitioners afresh, in the terms reproduced hereinabove. Parties are left to bear their own costs.