GHULAM RASOOL PANWAR vs FIA and another
This petition for leave to appeal, filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal that modified the petitioner's penalty from compulsory retirement to reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector for three years. The petitioner, a Federal Investigation Agency official, had been compulsorily retired following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's modification of the penalty warranted further interference or if the petitioner was entitled to greater relief. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, in exercising its discretionary powers, had already granted the petitioner maximum relief by taking a lenient view and reducing the harsh penalty of compulsory retirement. Furthermore, the Court noted that it had previously dismissed the department's challenge to the same Tribunal judgment, maintaining consistency. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of penalty modification by a Service Tribunal where no substantial legal question is raised.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's discretionary modification of a disciplinary penalty absent a substantial question of law?
- Does the principle of consistency require the Supreme Court to uphold a Service Tribunal judgment if a previous challenge to the same judgment by the opposing party was dismissed?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- The petitioner, through the present petition, filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeks leave to appeal, against judgment dated 8- 12-2007, whereby the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Tribunal) partially accepted his appeal and reduced punishment of compulsory retirement to that of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector (S.-I.) to Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) for a period of three years.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as A.S.-I. In Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and was promoted as S.-I. In 1987. He was issued a statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted his reply, inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer recommended for imposing one of the minor penalties upon the petitioner. The Director-General, FIA, the competent authority, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and he was compulsorily retired from service, vide order dated 17-5-2006. The petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal through appeal (Appeal No,233(K)CS of 2006) and the learned Tribunal converted the punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction in rank for a period of three years, vide judgment dated 8-12-2007. The department assailed the said judgment through filing petition (Civil Petition No,236 of 2008), while the petitioner challenged the same judgment through the present petition. The earlier petition filed by department was dismissed by this Court on 19-2-2008, maintaining the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the departmental representative and examined the available record.
4. We are of the view that although the competent authority, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded punishment of compulsory retirement to the petitioner, yet the learned Tribunal while taking a lenient view and after finding that punishment of compulsory retirement is too harsh proceeded to convert his punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction in rank. Under the circumstances, the petitioner got the maximum relief from the Tribunal, which in exercise of its discretionary powers modified the order passed by the competent authority. We are not persuaded to interfere in the judgment, as no case of further indulgence in the matter is made out.
5. As noted above, this Court maintained the impugned judgment by dismissing department's appeal. We, following the principle of consistency, are not persuaded to upset the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel, despite his best efforts could not demonstrate that any substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is involved in this case. On this ground too we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the grant of leave to appeal. Resultantly, the petition being meritless, stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.