DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD BAHAWALPUR and others vs KHALID MEHMOOD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent. The petitioner, the Deputy Director of Food, Bahawalpur, contended that the Tribunal acted without lawful justification in modifying the penalty and effectively exonerating the respondent, despite the serious nature of the allegations involving the misappropriation of funds. The respondent maintained that the Tribunal's decision was correct, asserting that no offence was committed and that the disputed amount had been deposited. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal possessed the legal authority to set aside a major penalty imposed following the completion of all mandatory disciplinary formalities under the relevant service rules, particularly by ignoring the factual findings established by the departmental authority. The Court further ordered the suspension of the impugned judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal.
- Can a Service Tribunal set aside a major penalty imposed after mandatory disciplinary formalities without lawful justification?
- To what extent can a Service Tribunal ignore the factual findings of a departmental authority in service 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 Rs.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 the 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.