MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and another
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police dismissed for misconduct, was reinstated in service with back benefits by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police following his acquittal by a court of law, though with a modification treating the period out of service as leave of the kind due. Subsequently, upon implementation, the period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Service Tribunal for full back benefits. The Service Tribunal not only refused back benefits but also suo motu set aside the reinstatement order and restored the original dismissal order passed by the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to suo motu set aside the reinstatement order while adjudicating an appeal solely concerning back benefits, and granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter required detailed examination while continuing the interim order.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction suo motu to set aside an order of reinstatement while dealing with an appeal filed by a civil servant for the grant of back benefits?
- Can the Service Tribunal restore an original dismissal order that was not challenged before it in an appeal concerning back benefits?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, while posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Pasrur, was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 11-4- 1982, on the ground of misconduct. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala who accepted his appeal vide order dated 19-9-1987 as the petitioner was acquitted by a Court of Law of the charges which formed the basis of his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement in service "with all back benefits".
2. But at the same time, it was observe d: "The period he remained out of service subsequent to his dismissal shall be treated as leave of kind due and the period of suspension if any as duty period."
3. ' Accordingly, while implementing the order of re-instatement on 10-10-1987 it was ordered that the period spent out of service shall be treated as period spent out of duty as leave without pay (extraordinary leave). The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 10-10-1987 before the Service Tribunal praying that he be given all back benefits.
4. ' The Service Tribunal vide order dated 12-6-1989 not only refused the prayer but went on to set aside the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala dated 19-9-1987 also which was never appealed from and restored the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police Sialkot dated 11-4-1982. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. The question whether the Service Tribunal could while dealing with the appeal of the petitioner for grant of all back benefits had the jurisdiction suo motu to order petitioner's dismissal from service by setting aside the order of his re-instatement earlier passed by the D.I.G. Police Gujranwala on 19- 9-1987, needs examination.
6. ' The appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and fixed for hearing on an early date.
7. ' Meanwhile the interim order dated 22-7-1989 shall continue.