Mr. M.M. ANSARI vs SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his supersession for promotion to the post of Cypher Officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal lies against the deferment of promotion due to a pending disciplinary case and the determination of fitness for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal pursuant to the statutory bar under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which stipulates that no appeal lies against an order determining the fitness of a person to be promoted to a higher post. The key principle laid down is that matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion and the consequent deferment based on pending disciplinary proceedings do not furnish a valid ground for invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.
- Does an appeal lie before the Service Tribunal against an order determining the fitness of a person to be promoted to a higher post?
- Can a civil servant challenge the deferment of his promotion when a disciplinary case is pending against him?
- Does the deferment of promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings raise a question of fitness not appealable under the Service Tribunals Act?
- Section 4(1)(b), Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 25-8-1988, whereby, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner was a Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was placed at serial No, 11, while Muhammad lqbal Khan (deceased) and Amil Siddiqui respondent No, 3 were shown at S. No, 12 and 14 in the seniority list. The petitioner was ignored for promotion to the post of Cypher Officer and hence, he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. Copy of the proceedings of departmental promotion committee while considering the name of the petitioner has noted the following observation:-- "A disciplinary case is pending against him. His case is, therefore, deferred for the time being."
3. ' The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that under provisions of section 4, subsection (1), proviso (b) of the Service Tribunal Act, no appeal lies against the order determining the fitness of a person to be promoted to the higher post. Hench this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed that the word "deferred" means only postponement and submitted that there is no disciplinary case pending against the petitioner and according to him the case of the petitioner was merely postponement as what the word "deferred" means and hence for mere postponement his promotion should have been considered according to the seniority list. The learned counsel have also informed that the petitioner being deprived of his seniority has left the service in order to vindicate his honour. We find that the factual question is involved in this case on which the learned Tribunal has given a correct finding which suffers from no legal infirmity. This being so, it is not fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.