SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O. KHUSHAB And Another vs JAVED MUHAMMAD
The respondent, an officiating Assistant Postmaster, faced departmental proceedings following an audit revealing the misappropriation of Rs. 13,51,600. Consequently, he was subjected to disciplinary action involving reduction in rank and a recovery order of Rs. 3,92,000. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal partially accepted the respondent's plea, setting aside the original punishment and modifying it to a reduction to a lower post for one year, while halting further recovery. The Postal Department challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tribunal itself acknowledged the disciplinary authority lacked the requisite competence to impose the initial punishment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal, having determined that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted by an incompetent authority, erred in merely modifying the punishment rather than setting aside the proceedings entirely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contention regarding the incompetence of the disciplinary authority required further examination, thereby indicating that the Tribunal's modification of the penalty in the face of jurisdictional incompetence warrants judicial review.
- Can a disciplinary authority impose punishment if it lacks the requisite competence for the rank of the employee?
- Is a Service Tribunal justified in modifying a punishment when it finds that the initial disciplinary proceedings were conducted by an incompetent authority?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J,---The respondent was an officiating Assistant Postmaster in Grade-9. During an audit of his office it was found that an amount of Rs.13,51,600 had been misappropriated.
Departmental proceedings were started against him and he was served with a charge-sheet. After a regular inquiry the following punishments were imposed upon him-- (1)reduction to lower stage by five steps in time-scale of Grade-7; and (2)recovery of loss in the sum of Rs.3,92,000 through deductions from his pay- He filed a departmental appeal but it was not decided. He then preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal partly accepted the appeal in the following terms: "Under the aforementioned facts, we find that punishment imposed on the appellant was not fully justified and we partially accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of punishment and modify it to the punishment of reduction/reversion to a lower post in time scale of B-7 for a period of one year (plus whatever amount has been recovered from him till the date of hearing) and direct the Department to stop any future recovery."
Being aggrieved by the order or the learned Tribunal Postal Department seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that according to the findings of the learned Tribunal itself that the penalty upon respondent had been imposed by an incompetent authority. In this context, reference has been made to the following extract from the judgment of the learned Tribunal: - "The learned counsel and the representative of the respondent Department had mentioned that since the appellant had been holding the substantive post of B-7 and not B-9, Senior Postmaster, Khushab was competent to take disciplinary proceedings and impose punishments on him. But the punishments awarded and appellant's reduction to B-7 indicated that initially he was holding B-9.
As such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was correct and accordingly the competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings and award punishment was Deputy/Assistant Director-- General (Admn) and not the Senior Postmaster."
It is stated that in view of this position the learned Tribunal erred in only modifying the punishment imposed upon the respondent.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
AA./S-779/SLeave anted.