MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES and another
The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal which had set aside his dismissal from service on technical grounds while denying him back benefits and granting liberty to the department to hold a fresh inquiry. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in denying back benefits entirely upon setting aside a dismissal order on technical grounds when charges were not quashed. The Supreme Court held that since the dismissal order was set aside on technical grounds without quashing the charges, the Tribunal could properly defer regulating remuneration until the final disposal of the matter by the competent authority. The key principle laid down is that where a civil servant is reinstated due to procedural defects without the charges being quashed, the competent authority determines back benefits upon the final conclusion of the inquiry, and the Tribunal may lawfully withhold back benefits for the interim period.
- Whether the Service Tribunal can deny back benefits in entirety when setting aside a dismissal order on technical grounds without quashing the charges?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal take into consideration subsequent orders passed by the competent authority that were not before the Service Tribunal?
- At what stage does the rule regarding remuneration of a reinstated civil servant get attracted under the civil service laws?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 9, Civil Servants Act 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 14-9-1988.
2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and an Order of his dismissal from service was passed on 29-11-1981. He appealed .To the Service Tribunal which set aside the dismissal order by observing as hereunder:- "It has been noticed that the show-cause notice was not sent on the proper address. The appellant was, therefore, not given an opportunity to defend himself. He was also not given a personal hearing by the authorised officer as required under the rules. The procedure laid down in the efficiency and discipline rules was therefore not followed. In these circumstances the appeal is partly accepted and it is directed that the appellant should be reinstated in service. Back benefits will, however, not be allowed to him.
' As the appeal has been partly accepted on technical grounds the department will be at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant."
' The petitioner feels aggrieved by that part of the order which denies him the back benefits.
3. Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the history of the law on the subject of remuneration with a view to establish that the Service Tribunal could not have denied the remuneration in its entirety while reinstating the petitioner. It could do so only partially and that too for good reason.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that the rules to which reference has been made relate to a final order when a civil servant is reinstated in service at the conclusion of the enquiry, where his misconduct if any, the extent and nature of it is finally determined. In the case before us, the dismissal order has been set aside but the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been quashed. Therefore, while reinstating, the Tribunal could have deferred regulating the remuneration to final disposal of the matter. It is for the competent authority when it finally deals with the charges either by dropping them or by otherwise concluding them that a situation would arise where the rules will get attracted. It will then be for the competent authority to decide whether and to what extent the rule with regard to remuneration has the application.
5. The learned counsel brought to our notice the subsequent order passed by the authority whereby it decided not to proceed with the charges and to end the matter. That order is subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, and independently creates an entitlement for the plaintiff to seek redress against that order like any other departmental order. This petition cannot take into consideration subsequent orders passed by the competent authority for reopening the order competently passed by the Service Tribunal. Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act justifies and the existence of charges protects the order of the Service Tribunal denying the remuneration for the interregnum when there was no legal decision of the competent authority available on the charges.
' No question of law of public importance arises in the case and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAFIQUE AHMED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2026 PLC(CS) 874