MUHAMMAD AMIN vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk, from service. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in its factual and legal assessment by holding that the petitioner’s resignation, submitted on July 3, 1988, and accepted on July 9, 1988, to take effect on August 3, 1988, precluded him from challenging his subsequent removal from service on July 31, 1988. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal’s reasoning was factually inconsistent and legally unsound, as the petitioner had been removed from service via disciplinary proceedings prior to the effective date of his resignation. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the legal implications of the removal order preceding the resignation's effective date. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the Tribunal's reliance on the resignation to dismiss the appeal was erroneous, thereby necessitating further consideration of the legality of the removal order in light of the conflicting timelines.
- Can a government servant's resignation be validly accepted after they have already been removed from service through disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the acceptance of a resignation with a future effective date preclude a government servant from challenging a prior removal from service?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding of fact binding when it is based on a chronological impossibility regarding the termination of employment?
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving as Junior Clerk on 13-7-1988 when two memoranda of allegations were sent to him on the charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption. It was alleged that on 13-7-1988 that the petitioner was absent from duty and that he had submitted a bogus T.A. Bill for the month of April, 1988. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within three days. He denied the allegations and requested a personal hearing by the Conservative of Forests. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 31-7-1988 by the Divisional Forest Officer in the capacity of Authority. The petitioner challenged the order of his termination in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed.
2. The petitioner who has been heard in person has drawn our attention to the following observations of the learned Tribunal:- "We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have come to the conclusion that appellant instead of contesting the enquiry before the concerned officer submitted his resignation on 3-7-1988 from 3-8-1988 which was accepted by respondent No,1 on 9-7-1988 with effect from 3- 8-1988 so now the appellant cannot say that he had withdrawn his resignation later on and his case may be dealt with on the ground referred to above in the body of the petition."
3. The petitioner was removed from service as a result of disciplinary inquiry on 31-7-1988.
Therefore, the observations of the learned Service Tribunal that his resignation dated 3-7-1988 was accepted on 9-7-1988 with effect from 3-8-1988 i,e. After three days of his removal from the service and that once a Government servant submits his resignation, he cannot later come to the Court with the prayer that he was a victim of the circumstances and his resignation may not be accepted are contrary to the facts. The appeal was dismissed mainly on this ground. However, his punishment was reduced from termination to that of removal from service.
4. Once the petitioner was removed from service acceptance of his resignation with effect from 3- 8-1988 does not appear to be legally sound. The Tribunal has ignored this aspect of the case. It requires consideration.
' Leave is granted.
' The appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.