POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, LAHORE And Another vs GHULAM
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in failing to address the issue of limitation regarding the service appeal and whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to reduce the penalty without deciding the appeal on its merits, particularly when the appeal was allegedly time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the objection regarding the limitation period and erred by not disposing of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal is legally obligated to address the question of limitation and dispose of an appeal on its merits, rather than merely reducing a penalty based on a request, especially when the maintainability of the appeal is challenged.
- Is a service tribunal required to decide the question of limitation before disposing of an appeal on merits?
- Can a service tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement without first adjudicating the appeal on its merits?
- Does a request by a respondent for the reduction of a penalty constitute a valid ground for a tribunal to bypass a decision on the merits of the appeal?
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: --This appeal by leave of the Court calls in question judgment dated 25-7- 1991 of Federal Service Tribunal disposing of appeal of respondent by converting his penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits according to law. In respect of limitation, explanation furnished by Mr. Mumtaz Ali Mirza, Dy. A.-G. Pakistan to the effect that petition for leave to appeal was filed in time as copy of impugned judgment was received by post in the office on 21-8-1991 is accepted as this fact is supported by affidavit duly sworn and placed on the record by Divisional Superintendent, Post Offices, Bahawalnagar.
2. Main contention raised on behalf of appellants before us is that Federal Service Tribunal should not have disposed of appeal by reducing penalty of respondent from dismissal to compulsory retirement with monetary benefits for the reasons firstly that service appeal was patently time- barred and there was no cogent reason to condone the delay. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have adverted to the question of limitation. Secondly not pressing of appeal by the respondent and requesting for reduction of penalty is not a valid ground for not disposing of appeal on merits particularly when there is objection that appeal is time-barred. Reliance is placed on the cases of WAPDA v. Zahoor Ahmed (1993 SCM R 582), Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 153) and Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 167), which fully support the contention. Thirdly on merits it is a case in which dismissal is justified as allegation against respondent is misappropriation of Government money and Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal.
3. Respondent was present in the Court and on our inquiry informed us that Inquiry Officer had exonerated him and disagreeing with him, the competent authority passed order of dismissal. We do not propose to go into the merits of this appeal. We see substantial force in the contentions of learned DyA.-G. Supported by case-law quoted above and agreeing with him we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the Tribunal for disposal of appeal on merits including determination of question of limitation. In the result appeal is allowed in terms stated above.