Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 936

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING CIRCLE, MULTAN and others vs IRSHAD AHMAD CH

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 936
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 350 of 1987
Date1989-07-29
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, directed against an order of the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions concern whether remaining members of the Service Tribunal can perform functions when the office of the Chairman is vacant; whether a tribunal can partly accept an appeal after holding it improperly constituted and not entertainable due to non-joinder of a necessary party; whether a suspension order is void if not accompanied or followed by an order for subsistence allowance; and whether competent authorities can treat a period of suspension as extraordinary leave without pay when the suspension is followed by reinstatement with a minor penalty like censure. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions and directed the appeal to be made ready for hearing on the present record. The key principle relates to the proper constitution of service tribunals, the legal effects of suspension orders, subsistence allowance requirements, and the regulation of suspension periods upon reinstatement.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • When the office of Chairman is vacant, can the other members of the Service Tribunal perform the functions of the Tribunal?
  • Whether it is open to the Tribunal to partly accept an appeal after recording a finding that it is improperly constituted and not entertainable on account of non-impleading of a necessary party?
  • Whether an order of suspension is void if it does not incorporate a direction or is not immediately followed by an order for the payment of subsistence allowance to the accused official?
  • Where suspension of an accused official is followed by reinstatement with a minor penalty like censure, is it open to the competent authority to direct that the period of suspension be treated as extraordinary leave without pay?
service tribunalleave to appealsuspension ordersubsistence allowanceextraordinary leave without payimproper constitutionnecessary party

ORDER

1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to consider the questions, namely:-

(1) When the office of Chairman is vacant, if the other members of the Service Tribunal cannot perform the functions of the Tribunal?

(2) Whether it is open to the Tribunal to partly accept an appeal after recording a finding that it is improperly constituted and for that reason not entertainable, on account of non-impleading of a necessary party?

(3) Whether an order of suspension is void if it does not incorporate a direction or is not immediately followed by an order for the payment of subsistence allowance to the accused official?

(4) Where suspension of an accused official is followed by reinstatement with a minor penalty like censure it is not open to the competent authority to direct that the period of suspension be treated as extraordinary leave without pay?

2. ' The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.