MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL vs The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and anothers

ORDER

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 16-1- 2015 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside the impugned finding against him and sent the case back for decision afresh after providing him a fair chance to defend himself.

2. The petitioner appearing in person contended that where the Tribunal hearing an appeal has limited powers in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal Act to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against, it could not send the case back to the Departmental Authority for decision afresh on de novo enquiry, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law. The petitioner to support his contention placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Abdul Khaliq, Primary Teacher, Primary School Rajkot, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad v. Zaheer Ahmed and 4 others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 706) .

3. We have gone through the record, the relevant statute carefully and considered the submissions of the petitioner addressed at the bar.

4. Before we appreciate the controversy stirred before us by the petitioner, it is worthwhile to refer to the provision, referred to by the petitioner. It reads as under:-- "6. Powers of Tribunal.---(1) The Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against.

(2) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), including the powers of--

(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) compelling the production of documents; and

(c) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and documents. "

5. A look at subsection (1) of the above quoted provision would reveal that the Tribunal on appeal may confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Subsection (2) of the said provision clearly provides that the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such court under the Code of Civil Procedure including the powers mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). Where the Legislature in its wisdom has conferred on the Tribunal all the powers as are vested in the civil court, we are afraid the argument addressed by the petitioner being based on partial view of the provision is not correct. The same error crept across the judgment rendered in the case of Abdul Khaliq, Primary Teacher, Primary School Rajkot, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad v. Zaheer Ahmed and 4 others (supra). Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that where a statute confers a jurisdiction on a Court or Tribunal it also confers by implication the powers which are reasonably incidental and ancillary to effective exercise of jurisdiction. When seen in this background, we do not think the petitioner could make out a case for interference.

6. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without merit is dismissed and the leave asked for is refused.