MUHAMMAD HASSAN, STENOGRAPHER, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Versus SECRETARY, PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a disciplinary action for willful absence from duty. The petitioner had been absent on multiple occasions and failed to provide adequate justification or medical certification when requested. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was initially compulsorily retired, but the Departmental Appellate Authority, on compassionate grounds, converted this penalty to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal, raising issues regarding the penalty and the subsequent denial of 'move-over' benefits. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was involved. The Court found the petitioner's case meritless, noting that the departmental authority had already adopted a lenient stance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, clarifying that grievances regarding 'move-over' benefits must be agitated separately before the departmental authorities and the Tribunal.
- Does a service matter involving disciplinary action for willful absence necessarily raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a government servant challenge the denial of 'move-over' benefits in a petition primarily concerning the imposition of a disciplinary penalty?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal in service matters where the departmental authority has already taken a lenient view of the misconduct?
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑ The petitioner was proceeded against for wilful absence from duty on 29‑31 May, 1997, 9th June, 1997 to 21st September, 1997, 23rd September, 1997 to 18th November, 1997. A memo. containing the said allegations, was issued on 3‑7‑1997 to the petitioner and he was directed to report for duty and explain his position as regards the said wilful absence. Thereafter a memo. was issued through registered A.D. at his Islamabad address as well as his permanent address, District Chakwal advising him to report for duty and explain his position within 14 days of the receipt thereof. Again no reply was given by the petitioner and another memo. was got published in National Press directing him to explain as to why action against him should not be taken under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 which may culminate in his dismissal from service. After publication of the said notice in the Press on 10‑9‑1997, petitioner reported for duty on 22‑9‑1997 and submitted certain explanations. He was directed to submit his medical fitness certificate as required under the rules and, in the absence of the same, was not allowed to join duty. Instead of submitting medical fitness certificate, he again absented himself without any intimation and subsequently reported for duty on 19‑11‑1997 alongwith medical certificate declaring him fit for duty w.e.f. 18‑11‑1997. His explanation as to illness of his mother, wife and he being under pressure, was still under consideration of the departmental authority, when he again absented himself from duty w.e.f. 6‑1‑1998.
2. Ultimately, during continuance of his absence, vide order dated 24‑3‑1998, major penalty of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 16‑1‑1998, was imposed upon him. Departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was, however, accepted on compassionate ground and major penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. This order was challenged by the petitioner through appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 25‑7‑2000, against which leave is sought.
3. At the very outset it may be observed that no question of law of public importance, as contemplated by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is involved. The petitioner, even on r merits, has no case. Departmental Appellate Authority has already' taken lenient view though he could not justify absence from duty for such a long time.
4. No case for interference has been made out.
5. The petitioner submitted that though two increments, without cumulative effect, had been stopped but the petitioner was not granted move over after two years though at the time of inflicting penalty of stoppage of increments, he was drawing maximum pay of the post, which he was holding.
6. If the petitioner feels aggrieved as regards grant of move‑over, according to terms and conditions of his service, he may agitate the matter before the departmental authorities and, in case he fails to get the relief, may approach Federal Service Tribunal, which is an independent matter.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
S.A.K./M‑352/S Leave refused.