Prof. Dr. SHAMIM HASSAN, UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES and another vs Dr. WASEEM ABBAS ZAIDI and another
This matter concerns petitions filed by Professor Dr. Shamim Hassan and the University of Health Sciences challenging a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had allowed an appeal filed by private respondents. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the private respondents possessed the necessary locus standi to maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a departmental order issued under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Upon examining the statutory framework, the Court observed that the right to appeal under Section 10 of the Ordinance is restricted to persons aggrieved by a final order passed under Section 9. The Court held that the private respondents failed to demonstrate that they were aggrieved by any such final order, rendering their appeal before the Service Tribunal legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal, and affirmed that the right to appeal is strictly confined to those directly aggrieved by the relevant departmental proceedings as defined by the governing statute.
- Does a person have locus standi to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal if they are not an aggrieved person under the relevant departmental order?
- Is an appeal maintainable under Section 10 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 by a party not aggrieved by a final order under Section 9?
- What is the scope of the right to appeal against departmental orders under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000?
- Section 9(1), Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
- Section 10, Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
- Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner in these two petitions, namely Professor Dr. Shamim Hassan and the University of Health Sciences, impugn the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 13-5-2010, whereby an appeal preferred by the private respondents (other than Professor Dr. Shamim Hassan) was allowed and as a consequence the matter was sent to the Chief Minister.
2. The question before us is as to whether the private respondents had locus standi to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a departmental order from which they are neither aggrieved nor did they have grounds to challenge the said order passed under section 9(1) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The relevant provisions of the said Ordinance are reproduced as under:- "9(1) The person who has been awarded any penalty under this Ordinance may within fifteen days from the date of the communication of the order, prefer a representation to such officer or authority as the Chief Minister may designate: ' Provided that where the order has been made by the Governor or the Chief Minister, such person may, within the aforesaid period, submit a review petition to the same authority which had passed the original order."
"10. Appeal---Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order under. Section 9 may within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, prefer an appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 (IX of 1974).---Provided that if a decision on a representation or review petition under section 9 is not received within a period of sixty days, the affected person may file an appeal under this section within a period of thirty days of the expiry of the aforesaid period."
From a plain reading of the above legal provisions, it is clear that the private respondents could not claim to be aggrieved by any final order under section 9(1) ibid. Therefore, their appeal before the Service Tribunal was clearly not maintainable. In this view of the matter, these two petitions are converted into appeals and're allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 13-5-2010 is set aside.