BOOR UZ ZAMAN AHMAD vs THE PUNJAB SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal question was whether a quorum of two members of the Tribunal was legally competent to decide the appeal on 10-2-1975, given the statutory requirements regarding the Tribunal's composition. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal, consisting of two members and a Chairman, could not be validly constituted by only two members. The respondent argued that Section 7 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974 permitted such disposal in the absence of a Chairman. The Supreme Court held that Section 7 had been deleted by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Ordinance IX of 1975, effective 8-2-1975. Consequently, as of 10-2-1975, the two-member quorum lacked the legal authority to dispose of the case. The Court accepted the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the merits, establishing that statutory provisions governing tribunal composition must be strictly adhered to at the time of adjudication.
- Was a two-member quorum of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal competent to decide a case on 10-2-1975?
- Did the deletion of Section 7 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974 by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Ordinance IX of 1975 affect the composition requirements of the Tribunal?
- Can a tribunal dispose of a matter without the legally required quorum?
- Section 3, Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974
- Section 7, Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974
- Punjab Administrative Tribunal Ordinance IX of 1975
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-A service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal on 10.2-1975, by a quorum of two members. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
2. It has been argued that according to the law as contained in section 3 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974. The Tribunal consisted of two Members and a Chairman, and that as such the disposal of the case by two Members was not warranted under that Act. The, contention seems to have merit and is fully supported from the provisions of the aforesaid section.
When confronted with this situation, learned A. A.-G. (Punjab), to whom notice had been issued, submitted, that section 7 of the Act authorised disposal of a case by two Members of the Tribunal, when any of them was unable to attend or when his seat was vacant. In this case, he submitted, that as the Chairman of the Tribunal had not been appointed, therefore, according to the provisions of section 7, the remaining two Members were competent to hear this case. The conten- -tion has no merit. Section 7 on which reliance is being placed was deleted with effect from 8-2- 1975 by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Ordinance IX of 1975, with the result, that thereafter, two Members alone could not have disposed of the case in hand on 10-2-1975.
3. The result is that the petition is converted into an appeal and is accepted, the order of the Tribunal dated 10-2-1975 is quashed, and they are directed to redecide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Parties to bear their own costs.