MUHAMMAD AMIN KALUS and others vs PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by petitioners challenging their dismissal from service and a recovery order imposed by the Punjab Local Government Board. The petitioners, whose services were terminated following disciplinary proceedings, sought redress through the Service Tribunal, which declined to grant relief. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine significant legal questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Specifically, the Court identified issues concerning whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, particularly in light of the status of Local Council Service members as civil servants under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore, the Court must determine the impact of the repeal of the 1979 Ordinance by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, the retrospective effect of such repeal, and whether disciplinary proceedings initiated under the former law remain governed by its rules. The Court converted the petitions into appeals for further adjudication.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from members of the Local Council Service under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
- Does the repeal of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 have retrospective effect on pending disciplinary proceedings?
- Are service rules framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 saved by the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974
- Section 44, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979
- Section 196(ii), Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001
' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment, dated 9-2-2005 whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been dismissed. We intend to dispose of the above captioned petitions arising out of the same judgment by this single order.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against Muhammad Amin. Kalus (C.P. No,343-L of 2005), Aftab Gulzar (C.P. No,603-L of 2005) major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on both of them by the Punjab Local Government Board vide order, dated 10-9-2003 with the direction that an amount of Rs,35,85,000 be recovered from them. Being aggrieved appeals were preferred which were dismissed on 16-12-2003 by the Appellate Committee comprising the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab (Chairman), Secretary Law and Secretary Regulations (Members). The petitioners approached the Punjab Service Tribunal by way of appeal which was dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Abdul Sami Khawaja and Chaudhry Manzoor Hussain Basra, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, scanned the entire record and perused the judgment impugned.
We are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:--
(i) Whether the learned Punjab Service Tribunal could have refused to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred upon it under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 by ignoring the provisions as enumerated in section 44 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 whereby members of Local Council Services were given the status of "Civil. Servants" enabling them to approach the Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances.
(ii) What would be the import, impact and effect of repeal of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 by means of Punjab Local Government Ordinance No,(XIII) of 2001 which was not given retrospective effect.
(iii) Whether the Service Rules framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 were saved pursuant to the provisions as enumerated in section 196(ii) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and in case answer is in affirmative, what would be its effect?
(iv) Whether the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners would be material or the date i,e, 10-9-2003 when the action was finalized and Ordinance XIII to 2001 was operative.
(v) Whether the impugned judgment is in consonance with the law laid down in P.I.A. Corporation v.
Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners PLD 1981 SC 553 and Adnan Afzal v. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187.
' The above captioned petitions are converted into appeal which may be fixed at some early date.