KHAWARMUNIRDAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL,EXCISEANDTAXATICA,PUNJAB
The petitioner challenged the legality of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing his service appeal, on the ground that one of the members of the Tribunal who heard the appeal had retired prior to the announcement of the judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a judgment signed by a Tribunal member before retirement but announced after his retirement constitutes a valid judgment of the Tribunal. The Court held that a judgment takes effect from the date of its announcement, and since the member had already retired by that date, he was no longer a member of the Tribunal, rendering the judgment invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh rehearing.
- Whether a judgment signed by a tribunal member before retirement but announced after retirement is valid?
- Does a judgment take effect from the date it is recorded or the date it is announced?
- What is the legal effect of an order pronounced by a tribunal member who has ceased to hold office?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑‑ The petitioner was serving as a junior clerk in the Directorate of Excise and Taxation in' Sargodha Division. Consequent upon disciplinary proceedings he was removed from service by the Director on 14‑9‑1989: He filed a departmental appeal before the Director‑General but it was rejected. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was heard by a Bench of the Tribunal, comprising the Chairman and Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan on 15‑12‑1993. The judgment was announced on 5‑1‑1994. It was one of dismissal.
2. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment on the ground that Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan had retired on 30‑12‑1993, that is, six days before the judgment was announced. Mr. Farooq Bedar, Addition4l Advocate‑General has affirmed the assertion of the petitioner.
3. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan and he appended his signatures thereof on the very day when he retired but that does not help. The judgment has to be taken as of the date when it was announced. Since on that day Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan was not a member of the Tribunal the judgment cannot be regarded as that of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for rehearing of the appeal.
H.B.T./K‑279/S Appeal allowed.