) The Joint Director, National Savings And Another (In Both Cases) vs Syed
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Joint Director of National Savings against an order of the Service Tribunal, which had modified the penalty imposed on the respondent from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, represented by the Deputy Attorney General, contended that the Tribunal failed to properly exercise its powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in converting the penalty. The Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction or in an improper manner warranting interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Upon hearing the arguments, the Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Tribunal exceeded its statutory scope or exercised its jurisdiction improperly. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law of public importance or substantial question of law was involved in the matter. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the Tribunal's authority to modify penalties in service matters absent a demonstration of legal error.
- Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to convert a penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Section 5, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J. - Mr. Faisal Arab, learned Deputy Attorney General has forcefully argued that the Tribunal while converting the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement, has not properly exercised the power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
The learned DAG however, has not been able to satisfy us that in what manner the Tribunal exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 5 ibid or acted in an improper manner calling for interference of this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. Having heard the learned Deputy Attorney- General, we have not been able to find out any question of law of public importance or substantial question of law involved in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.