PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's service appeal and directed his reinstatement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent, while allowing authorities to proceed afresh against him for the alleged charges, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order, which was based on both the merits of the case and the legal permissibility of recovering losses from the respondent's pay following his dismissal. The Court held that the first point regarding the merits did not involve a question of law of public importance. Regarding the second point, the Court determined that it was premature to address the legality of the recovery, as the respondent might be dismissed again upon a fresh inquiry, at which point the authorities could independently decide the recovery issue. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, finding no useful purpose would be served by further litigation in the current circumstances.
- Does the decision of a Service Tribunal regarding the merits of a service appeal necessarily involve a question of law of public importance?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when the underlying legal issue regarding the recovery of losses may become moot depending on the outcome of fresh disciplinary proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance of respondent's service appeal, by the Federal Service. Tribunal.
2. ' The operative part reads as under:-- "The appeal is accepted and it is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated in service. Since, however, the appeal is being accepted for technical reasons it shall be open for the relevant authorities to proceed afresh against him for the charge but in strict conformity with the relevant law and the prescribed procedure."
3. The impugned order is based on two reasons. One, relating purely to merits of the case; and second, that the recovery of the loss caused to the Government from his pay of the respondent after his dismissal from service or contemporaneously when the order of dismissal of his service is being passed, was not permissible.
4. In so far as the first point in concerned it does not involve any question of law of public importance.
5. ' Although the second point might need examination; but, in case the respondent succeeds on the first point the second point would not arise in this case. And if he fails on the first point of merits, and he is again dismissed from service the authority concerned would be at liberty to examine and decide the question afresh as to whether under the law the recovery could and should be ordered or not.
6. ' Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by grant of leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case. The same, accordingly, is refused.