MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN and 2 others vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, GUJRANWALA and 9 another
This matter concerns three petitions for special leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners, employed as Foodgrain Supervisors/Inspectors, faced departmental proceedings and service termination following the discovery of a wheat stock shortage at their centre. After filing departmental appeals which remained undecided for 90 days, the petitioners approached the Punjab Service Tribunal. During the pendency of these appeals, the departmental authorities dismissed the departmental appeals. The petitioners requested the Tribunal to allow them to challenge these subsequent dismissal orders within their existing pending appeals. The Tribunal rejected this request and dismissed the appeals, holding that the departmental dismissal rendered the pending appeals infructuous. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Tribunal's view appeared to conflict with the precedent established in S.A. Mukarim v. Government of Sind (1988 SCMR 826). The Court determined that the legal contention regarding the maintainability and procedural handling of the pending appeals in light of subsequent departmental orders required further examination.
- Does the dismissal of a departmental appeal during the pendency of an appeal before the Service Tribunal render the pending appeal infructuous?
- Can a petitioner challenge a subsequent departmental appellate order within the scope of an already pending appeal before the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are three petitions for special leave to appeal from the order dated 25-5-88 of the Punjab Service Tribunal.The petitioners were Foodgrain Supervisors/Inspectors and were incharge of wheat stock at Nowshera Virkan Centre. A Martial Law Inspection Team conducted a raid on the centre on 21-10-83 and found huge shortage in the wheat stocks.
Consequent upon this discovery, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners.
Departmental proceedings were also taken against them. Consequent upon these proceedings, not only their services were terminated but they were also asked to make up the loss suffered by the Government. The petitioners filed departmental appeals. These were not decided within 90 days whereupon they filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeals were admitted to regular hearing. During the pendency of the appeals, the departmental appeals were disposed of.The petitioners did not file separate appeals against the orders made by the appellate authority but prayed that they should also be permitted to challenge the said orders in the appeals already pending in the trial Court. The Learned Tribunal not only rejected this prayer but also dismissed the appeals on the ground that with the dismissal of the departmental appeals, the appeals already pending before the Tribunal had become infructuous.The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the orders of the Tribunal.
2. In support of these petitions it is contended that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is in conflict with the decision of this Court in S.A Mukarim v. Government of Sind (1988 SC MR 826). The contention raised needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,1,000 in each petition. The appeal may he made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.