MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, LAHORE
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal, after setting aside an order of dismissal against a civil servant, possessed the discretion to deny him back benefits, specifically by treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay. The appellant contended that since the dismissal was set aside, he was entitled to full back benefits. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the authority setting aside an order of dismissal has the power to determine the entitlement to arrears of pay. The Court further observed that the Tribunal had applied an overly lenient standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') in the departmental enquiry, and in that context, the Tribunal acted within its lawful discretion to deny back benefits. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's authority to exercise discretion regarding back benefits upon reinstatement.
- Does the Service Tribunal have the discretion to deny back benefits when setting aside an order of dismissal?
- What is the scope of the authority to determine arrears of pay under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Can a Service Tribunal treat the period between dismissal and reinstatement as extraordinary leave without pay?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 16, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether while setting aside the order of dismissal of the appellant the Service Tribunal could deny him the benefit of his salary etc. And direct the period to be treated as extraordinary leave.
2. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally and dismissed from service and also an order of recovering Rs,16,300 was passed against him. It was upheld in appeal but set aside by the Service Tribunal on an appeal which held as hereunder:- "In these circumstances I hold that the Enquiry Officer or the Departmental authorities have not been able to prove the allegations against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of this analysis I hold that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the damage caused to the Forest produce and the charges levelled against him are not proved.
' In granting the relief, however, the Tribunal observed as hereunder:-- "In view of the detained analysis, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted.
The appellant shall be reinstated into service but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re-instatement shall be treated as extrordinary leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs."
3. Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant's dismissal order and also the order directing recovery of the loss was set aside, the Tribunal could not have denied him the back benefits, because it was for no fault of his own the appellant remained away from duty.
4. As regards the powers of the Service Tribunal or authority, setting aside the dismissal order, the following provision exists in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974:-- "16. Pay.-- A civil servant appointed to a post or grade shall be entitled, in accordance with the rules, to the pay sanctioned for such post or grade: ' Provided that, when the appointment is made on a current charge basis or by way of additional charge, his pay shall be fixed in the prescribed manner: ' Provided further that where a civil servant has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank, he shall, in the event of the order of dismissal, removal from service or reduction in rank being set aside, be entitled to such arrears of pay as the authority setting aside the order may determine."
5. Apart from the power possessed by the Tribunal, we find that in adopting the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt in departmental enquiry and on that test setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant, the Tribunal had shown a leniency, not warranted by law. In that background it could, on the facts of the case, deny him the back benefits. It was within its discretion. There appears material on the record to sustain the exercise of discretion in that manner.
6. No ground is made out for our interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed wiht no order as to costs.
Cited by 4 cases
- SHAFIQUE AHMED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2026 PLC(CS) 874
- Chief Executive MEPCO & others vs Muhammad Fazil, etc 2019 SCP 246
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others 2019 PLJ SC 450, 2019 P.S.C 1295, 2019 SCP 246, 2019 SCMR 919
- Syed KAMALUDDIN AHMAD vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others 1992 SCMR 1348