KHALID SIDDIQUE vs SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE, and 2 others
The petitioner, an Excise and Taxation Officer, challenged a penalty imposed for allegedly reducing a bus's seating capacity to lower tax liability. Following departmental proceedings and an unsuccessful review, he appealed to the Provincial Service Tribunal. The appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and a Member; however, the Member retired before the judgment was delivered. The Chairman subsequently issued the judgment alone, partially accepting the appeal by reducing the penalty. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, raising two primary legal questions. First, whether the Chairman was competent to deliver the judgment alone after the matter had been heard by a two-member Bench, specifically in light of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. Second, whether the Tribunal erred by failing to specify the duration of the penalty, as required by Fundamental Rule 29. The Supreme Court found these contentions required examination and granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflict in previous judicial interpretations regarding the Tribunal's composition and procedural requirements.
- Is a Chairman of a Service Tribunal competent to deliver a judgment alone if the appeal was heard by a Bench comprising both the Chairman and a Member who subsequently retired?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 require a penalty of reduction in time scale to specify the duration for which the penalty remains in force?
- Does the special provision regarding the composition of a Bench in the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 override the general provisions of section 3-A?
- Section 3(3), Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
- Section 3-A, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
- Section 4(2)(a), Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
- Fundamental Rule 29
ORDER
' SAAD SOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was serving as Excise and Taxation Officer (Training Cell), Bahawalnagar. There was allegation against him that he had despite the report of his subordinate staff wrongly reduced the seating capacity of a bus from 42 seats to 16 seats with the object of reducing the tax liability of the owner thereof. After departmental proceedings the penalty of reduction in time scale by three stages was imposed upon him. He filed a review application which met with no success. He then filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal.
2. The appeal of the petitioner was heard by a Bench of the Tribunal comprising the Chairman and a Member. The Member retired before the judgment could be delivered. The Chairman partly accepted the appeal by altering the penalty to reduction in time scale by one stage only. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised:
(1) The Chairman alone was not competent to deliver the judgment when the appeal had been heard by the Chairman and one Member. In this A context, reliance is being placed on section 4(2)
(a) read with section 3(3), the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. It is urged that an appeal against the imposition of penalty involving reduction in time scale can only be heard by a Bench comprising at least two members one of whom may be the Chairman and this special provision overrides section 3-A of the Act. It is also pointed out that in the two judgments delivered by this Court contrary views have been expressed. The judgments are Rafi-ud-Din v. Member, Board of Revenue (1995 PLC (C.S.) 111) and Abdul Rehman v. Inspector-General of Police PLD 1995 SC 546 = 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1191).
(2) The second contention is that while inflicting the punishment of reduction in time scale the Tribunal was required to indicate the period during which the penalty was to remain in force. This has not been done. In support of this contention reference has been made to Fundamental Rule 29.
4. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.