PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Syed DILAWAR ALI SHAH
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab, through the Director-General and Assistant Director of Social Welfare, challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 18-10-1984. The Service Tribunal had modified the disciplinary penalty imposed on the respondent, Syed Dilawar Ali Shah, by setting aside his removal from service and substituting it with the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and a censure, while also directing that the respondent's period of absence be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence on record and whether it had properly addressed all charges, specifically the allegation of willful absence from duty between 13-9-1983 and 26-9-1983. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contentions regarding the Tribunal's failure to discuss the additional charge of willful absence required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the Tribunal's decision.
- Does a Service Tribunal's failure to address specific charges in a disciplinary case warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Can a Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to a lesser punishment without addressing all findings of fact?
ORDER
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 18-10-84.
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 extraordinary 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 13-9-83 to 26-9-83.
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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.