SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O., KHUSHAB and anothers vs JAVED MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Postal Department against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, an officiating Assistant Postmaster in Grade-9, faced departmental proceedings regarding the misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 13,51,600. Following an inquiry, he was penalized with reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale and recovery of a monetary loss. His departmental appeal remained undecided, leading him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted his appeal, set aside the original punishment, modified it to reduction in rank for one year, and halted future recovery. The Postal Department sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that once the Tribunal found the punishing authority was incompetent to award the penalty, it erred in merely modifying the punishment rather than setting it aside entirely. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and granted leave to appeal, establishing that the validity of disciplinary penalties imposed by purportedly incompetent authorities warrants formal review.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can modify a punishment after finding it was imposed by an incompetent authority?
- Who is the competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings and award punishment against an employee holding a substantive post versus an officiating post?
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 a 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 of 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 from 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/Asstt. 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.