Pakistan Case LawMAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIAC And Another
The petitioner, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), challenged his exclusion from promotion consideration following a penalty of censure imposed in 1980. While posted in Abu Dhabi, the petitioner alleged that junior colleagues were promoted over him. After his departmental appeal against the censure failed, he approached the Service Tribunal, seeking the setting aside of the penalty and a direction to be considered for promotion with effect from August 1982. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the technical ground that no appeal lies before it against the imposition of a minor penalty. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal failed to address the petitioner's core grievance regarding his entitlement to be considered for promotion during the period he served abroad, irrespective of the minor penalty issue. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in failing to adjudicate the promotion claim, emphasizing that the merits of the promotion eligibility required judicial consideration beyond the technical dismissal concerning the minor penalty.
- Does an appeal lie before the Service Tribunal against the imposition of a minor penalty?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an entire appeal on technical grounds without addressing the merits of a promotion claim?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving in P.IA. When he was transferred to Abu Dhabi in 1982. During his posting abroad, some juniors to him were promoted. The petitioner on return from abroad joined his duty on 22-10-85. The petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure on 4-2-80. He made a departmental appeal against the said penalty but without any success. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent in excluding him from consideration for promotion to higher grade on account of punishment of censure. The reply sent to the petitioner reads as hereunder:-
"Your case for reinvestigation of suppersession has been processed for Management's consideration. We shall revert to you as and when a decision to this effect is arrived at." Thereafter the petitioner was informed that his request had been turned down. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and made a prayer that the penalty of censure may be set aside and the petitioner may be ordered to be promoted with effect from August, 1982 with back benefits. Subsequently, he amended the prayer that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion with effect from August, 1982. The learned Service Tribunal disposed of his appeal alongwith other appeals and a common judgment was delivered. It was observed that no appeal lies to the Service Tribunal for imposing minor penalty. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed only on technical ground.
2.The learned counsel has submitted that the prayer of the petitioner was that he may be considered for promotion with effect from August, 1982 when he was serving abroad and there were no adverse remarks against him. His promotion was due on that date.
3.The Service Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect of the case and this point requires examination. Leave is granted.
4.The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments