SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others vs AZMAT ALI
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, and other police officials against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent, Azmat Ali, while denying him financial benefits for the period he remained out of service due to his conduct. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and therefore should not have been reinstated. The Supreme Court examined the basis of the respondent's initial removal, noting that the order of the Superintendent of Police relied upon a conviction passed by a Summary Military Court. Crucially, the Court observed that the conviction order had not been countersigned by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator (D.M.L.A.), which effectively rendered the conviction order set aside. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments, holding that the Tribunal's decision was legally sound given the invalidity of the underlying conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court that lacks the countersignature of the Deputy Martial Law Administrator remain valid for the purpose of terminating a civil servant?
- Can a Service Tribunal order the reinstatement of an employee while denying back benefits based on the employee's conduct?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad; Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sardogha and Inspector-General of Police. Punjab, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 14-9-1981.
2. ' The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment directed that the respondent be reinstated but as his conduct was not entirely unblemished he shall not be eligible for any financial benefits for the period he remained out of service.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the respondent was found guilty of misconduct, hence the judgment of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.
4. ' This contention has no force because of the following observation in the impugned judgment which the learned counsel was unable to meet:- '...We have also taken note of the order of the Superintendent of Police which is based on the order of conviction passed by the Summary Military Court. When the order of conviction had not been countersigned by the D.M.LA. It amounted to setting aside the said order."
5. ' We are, therefore, of the view that the petition has no merits. It is dismissed accordingly.