PAKISTAN through Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 others vs NISAR
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan through the Secretary, Government of Pakistan and others against the acceptance of the respondent's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his compulsory retirement. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney-General sought permission to take up additional questions of law of general public importance through an application for amendment of the petition. The newly raised questions pertained to whether the Tribunal, upon objecting to the inquiry procedure for failing to inspect the spot, ought to have remanded the case back to the Inquiry Committee for a fresh finding in light of established precedent, and whether the Tribunal should have ascertained the action taken against other involved officials. The Supreme Court found the request for amendment reasonable and allowed it. Determining that the points raised from the petitioners' side required deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the impugned judgment in the interim.
- Whether the Service Tribunal should remand a case to the Inquiry Committee when it finds procedural defects such as failure to inspect the spot?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is required to ascertain the action taken against other co-accused officials when determining a service appeal?
- Can a petitioner be permitted to amend a petition for leave to appeal to raise additional questions of law of public importance?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the Federal Service Tribunal, of respondent's service appeal. It had arisen out of an order of his compulsory retirement.
2. ' Although questions of non-reading and misreading of evidence and some other questions have been raised in the main petition, the learned Deputy Attorney-General after some arguments, submitted an application for permission to take up additional pleas which reads as follows:- "That on going through the entire case, it appears that certain important questions of law of general public importance can be raised in addition to the questions already raised in the main petition. In the interest of justice, petitioner may graciously be permitted to raise following questions of law:-
(1) The Tribunal did not set aside finding of Enquiry Committee in its entirety but only objected to the procedure thereof. The objection was to the effect that the Enquiry Committee failed to inspect the spot, so as to ascertain the merits of the charges.
3. ' It is submitted that in such a case, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case to the Inquiry Committee to inspect the spot and give a fresh finding on the charges after further enquiry. This would be in accord with law declared by this Hon'ble Court in Mohammad Yameen's case.
(2) That the second question of law is that since the Tribunal took into consideration involvement of other officials in the matter, whether the Tribunal should not have ascertained as to action taken against the other officials so as to determine the effect thereof on the case of the respondent.
4. ' It is, therefore, humbly prayed that petitioner be allowed to amend the main petition so as to take up the abovenoted points."
5. ' The request for amendment of the petition is reasonable. It is allowed.
6. ' The points raised from the petitioners' side including those in the application for amendment, require examination. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. The impugned judgment is suspended meanwhile.