DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and others vs Mehr ASIF NADEEM
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner-department against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which modified the respondent's penalty of dismissal from service to reduction in pay. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in re-analyzing and re-examining the evidence and inquiry proceedings after the departmental authorities concurrently found the respondent guilty. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was raised, and that the Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to re-examine material and independently assess the legality and justification of departmental penalties. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming the Tribunal's competence to re-assess evidence outside the departmental hierarchy.
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to re-analyze and re-examine evidence led during a departmental inquiry?
- Whether the concurrent findings of departmental authorities bar the Service Tribunal from modifying a penalty?
- What constitutes a question of law of public importance for the grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Through the present petition, the petitioner-department seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 23-12-2010, passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing for the petitioner-department has contended that the respondent was proved guilty of charges in the inquiry, through inquiry report, which was duly maintained by the departmental authority by rejecting his departmental appeal.
Further that as the departmental authorities were concurrent on the question of proof of respondent's guilt, therefore, the Tribunal should not have reanalyzed the evidence and to pass the impugned judgment upsetting the penalty of dismissal from service and modifying the same to the reduced penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years. And that instead the Tribunal should have maintained the penalties of dismissal and recovery etc, as imposed by the departmental authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has read out the detailed reasoning of the Tribunal as contained in paras 6, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment. He has contended that the Tribunal had the authority to re-look into the evidence, inquiry proceedings as well as the inquiry report to make an assessm ent qua justification of the penalties imposed by the department.
4. After hearing the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been raised by the petitioner department to justify grant of leave to appeal. Instead, we believe that the Tribunal duly and properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it to, re-analyze and re-examine the evidence led during the inquiry to make an independent assessm ent of the same outside the hierarchy of the department. It is well settled that the Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to re-examine the material, which is before the departmental authorities, and re-assess the same to conclude as to the legality and justification of the penalties imposed. We find the jurisdiction has been fairly exercised by the Tribunal in terms of settled principles of law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.