AKBAR KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Incharge in the Federal Service Tribunal, following disciplinary proceedings on charges of accepting illegal gratification. Initially remanded for a fresh enquiry by the Authority, the disciplinary process culminated in his dismissal from service. The petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal and subsequently filed an application to amend his memorandum of appeal to incorporate additional grounds. However, the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal without deciding his application for amendment. The petitioner contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defense as no personal hearing was granted by the Authorised Officer or the Authority post-remand, and that the Tribunal erred in failing to rule on his amendment application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these core procedural questions regarding personal hearing after remand, defense rights, and the non-disposal of an amendment application.
- Whether after remand an employee is entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authorised Officer and the Authority?
- Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing post-remand denies reasonable opportunity to defend oneself?
- Whether a service tribunal is legally justified in deciding an appeal without first disposing of an application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal arises from the facts that Akbar Khan petitioner was working as Assistant Incharge in the Office of the Federal Service Tribunal. On the charge of accepting illegal gratification, an enquiry was held against him. He was charge- sheeted. He was given final Show-Cause Notice and personal hearing by the concerned officers. At the stage of personal hearing by the Authority (Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal), the case was remanded for fresh enquiry. After the remand, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Authorised Officer who forwarded it to the Authority. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 20-7-1993. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal he moved application for permission to amend the Memorandum of Appeal in order to take additional grounds therein. The Service Tribunal, however, without deciding his application for amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal, has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 22-6-1994. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that after the remand no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Authorised Officer or by the Authority and he has been dismissed from service simply on the report of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel has further contended that although the petitioner had moved an application for amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal in order to add more grounds therein but the learned Tribunal has just ignored the application and has decided the appeal without disposing of the aforesaid application.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to granted to consider.--
(i) Whether after remand the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity personal hearing by the Authorised Officer and the Authority as well?
(ii) Whether by not giving him the opportunity of personal hearing the reasonable opportunity to defend himself has not been denied to the petitioner? And
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal without first disposing of the application for the amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioner.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs CHAIRMAN PUNJAB LABOUR, etc 2017 PLJ Lahore 729