PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DirectorGeneral, Social Welfare and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab and the Social Welfare Department against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, setting aside an order of removal from service and substituting it with the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and a censure, while treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's findings were contrary to the evidence on record and that the Tribunal failed to address a specific additional charge regarding the respondent's alleged willful absence from duty between 13-9-1983 and 26-9-1983. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the evidentiary findings and the omission of the charge of willful absence warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider these issues, allowing the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record with the liberty to file additional documents.
- Does a Service Tribunal's failure to address a specific charge of willful absence in its judgment warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when there is a contention that the Service Tribunal's findings are contrary to the evidence on record?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Province of Punjab through Director-General, Social Welfare Punjab and the Assistant Director, Social Welfare, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 18-10-1984.
2. ' The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment set aside the orders of the Director-General and the Assistant Director, Social Welfare and varied the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and that of censure. The Tribunal further held that the intervening period was to be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that some of the findings of the Tribunal were contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that there is no discussion in the impugned judgment with regard to the additional charge pertaining to the wilful absence of the respondent from 13-9-1983 to 26-9-1983.
4. ' We think the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs examination. Leave is accordingly granted.
5. ' Appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents within two months.