GULZAR HUSSAIN, A.S.-T. vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Gulzar Hussain against the District Police Officer and others, reported as 2012 PLC (C.S.) 901. The petitioner challenged departmental penalties and treatment of the period out of service following proceedings before a Tribunal. The core legal questions raised before the Supreme Court concern whether a converted penalty of forfeiture of approved service can be imposed when all charges are disproved, whether the period spent out of service upon reinstatement can be treated as leave without pay, and whether such forfeiture constitutes a legitimate punishment in the absence of proof of charges. Granting leave to appeal, the court held that the propositions raised require formal consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of the Tribunal's decision and the nature of the penalties imposed under service law.
- Can a penalty of forfeiture of approved service be imposed by a Tribunal when all charges against an employee are disproved?
- Whether the period an employee remained out of service upon reinstatement can be treated as leave without pay?
- Is forfeiture of two years approved service a legitimate punishment in the absence of proof of all charges?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Malik Saeed Hassan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following propositions:--
(i) that on disproof of all the charges as per Tribunal's judgment, could the converted penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service be imposed by the Tribunal;
(ii) that on reinstatement of the petitioner in service, could "the period during which he remained out of service" be treated as leave without pay; and
(iii) Whether forfeiture of two years approved service is a 'legitimate punishment, particularly, in absence of proof of all the charges.
2. The above questions require consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.