MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD And 3 Others
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the termination of a civil servant. The petitioner, formerly employed in the Telegraphs and Telephone Department, went on deputation to Saudi Arabia. Following his failure to report for duty upon the expiry of his deputation, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings and determined he had ceased to be in service as of 12-6-1977, pursuant to Fundamental Rule 18. The Tribunal modified this termination date to 12-6-1982 but upheld the cessation of service. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's deputation had been validly extended beyond the initial period and whether the department could retrospectively recognize the cessation of service. The Supreme Court held that the department's policy letter regarding deputation was permissive and required an independent order to operate, which was absent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that recognizing the legal consequences of continued absence from duty from the date they occurred did not constitute an impermissible retrospective order. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a permissive policy letter regarding deputation operate to extend a deputation period without an independent order?
- Does an order recognizing the legal consequences of a civil servant's continued absence from the date they occurred constitute an impermissible retrospective order?
- Does the failure to report for duty after the expiry of a deputation period trigger the cessation of service under Fundamental Rule 18?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Fundamental Rule 18, Fundamental Rules
- Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29-3-1992 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was accepted but only partly in so far as the date when he ceased to be a civil servant was modified from 12-6-1977 to 12-6-1982.
2. The petitioner was serving in the Telegraphs and Telephone Department when he was allowed deputation; for a year from 8-6-1976 and for service in Saudi Arabia. He did not report back after the expiry of the deputation period whereupon a notice was published in the Daily `Nawa-e--- Waqt', Multan dated 5-3-1985 informing him that if he failed to report, proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 shall start. He reported for duty on 12-3- 1985 but was subsequently proceeded against departmentally and by an order passed on 21-5- 1987 it was held that he had ceased to be in service from 12-6-1977 when his deputation period expired in view of Fundamental Rule 18. The monetary benefits that he drew during this period were directed to be recovered from him. He appealed to the Service Tribunal which accepted the appeal only to the extent that it was held that the date the petitioner ceased to remain in service shall be read as 12-6-1982 instead of 12-6-1977. The order with regard to the recovery was also set aside.
The petitioner does not feel satisfied with the order and he seeks leave to appeal against it.
3. The petitioner controverted on the factual plane that the deputation was only for a year. He contended that it was extended once for a period-of two years and the second time for five years.
The departmental representative was asked to resolve this controversy and he has denied any extension having been made. According to him, five years extension has been' pleaded on the basis of the policy letter which was permissive in nature and without an independent order it could not itself operate so as to extend the deputation from the specified period to a period of five years.
It in fact prohibited deputation beyond a period of five years. It is of no avail to the petitioner.
4. As regards the law on the subject, it has been laid down and exhaustively considered in Mst.
Maryam Yunus v. Director of Education, Cantonment, GHQ (PLD 1990 SC 666). The power of the Department to pass orders from the retrospective date has not been exceeded because here only the legal consequence had been recognized from the date that it flowed due to continued absence of the petitioner from duty. The order accomplishes nothing more than giving effect to it.
5. No ground is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.