CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/ CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PRESS
This matter concerns two civil petitions filed by the Chief Executive of Progressive Paper Limited against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of two employees and remanded their cases for fresh disciplinary proceedings. The employees had been dismissed for short periods of unauthorized absence, but the disciplinary proceedings were conducted by a privately engaged advocate whose impartiality was questioned. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's decision to set aside the dismissal and order a de novo inquiry was legally infirm. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision was sound, noting that the disciplinary proceedings conducted by an external, potentially biased advocate were fundamentally flawed. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that disciplinary inquiries must be conducted by fair and impartial officers. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, refusing leave to appeal, and imposed costs on the petitioner for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation despite the Tribunal's direction allowing the employer to initiate fresh, proper proceedings against the employees.
- Can disciplinary proceedings against an employee be conducted by a privately engaged advocate whose impartiality is questionable?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to set aside a dismissal order and remand the matter for fresh disciplinary proceedings?
- Is an employer entitled to leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution when the Tribunal has merely ordered a fresh, impartial inquiry?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2708-L and 2709-L of 2004 as they arise out of the same consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 27-7-2004 and involve similar questions of law and facts.
2. On the charge of remaining absent from duty for two hours in the case of the private respondent in C.P. No,2708-L of 2004 and for seven hours in the case of the private respondent in C.P. 2709-L of 2004, they were both dismissed from service. The matter remained pending with the learned Service Tribunal and the Honourable High Court on account of a controversy regarding jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal which was finally settled by the High Court through a judgment, dated 17-4- 2002. The learned Tribunal then proceeded to pass the impugned judgment dated 27-7-2004 whereby the orders terminating the services of the said two respondents were set aside and the case was remanded back to the employer for fresh proceedings in accordance with law to be held by a fair and impartial officer of the said employer.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in both these petitions at some length who could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the said impugned judgment which could have qualified the petitioner for the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. As has been noticed above, the disciplinary proceedings against the private respondents had been held by a privately engaged Advocate whose impartiality and independence was found to be open to exception. No exception could be taken to the above- noticed opinion of the learned Tribunal or to the impugned judgment which had left the employer free to hold fresh proceedings in the matter to determine the guilt or otherwise of the said employees.
4. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in these two petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
5. We are of the opinion that the petitioner had unnecessarily dragged the private respondents into this litigation especially in these petitions before us and moreso when the learned Tribunal had left it open to the employer to take up fresh proceedings against the said employees. In view of such an irresponsible conduct on the part of the petitioner, we direct the petitioner to pay Rs,5,000 as costs to each of the private respondents which costs shall be paid to the said respondents within one month and the copies of the receipts acknowledging the said payment shall be sent to the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time for the information of this Bench.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAMA KHAN ZAFAR vs DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LODHRAN and others 2014 C.L.R. 1014, 2014 PLC (C.S.) 948