MUEENULLAH vs THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DHQ HOSPITAL, KASUR and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his review application seeking recall of an earlier order that had dismissed his service appeal as not pressed. The petitioner, a Laboratory Assistant removed from service following departmental inquiry proceedings concerning allegations of severe misconduct and attempt to rape a hospital visitor, claimed that he had not withdrawn his appeal. The core legal questions pertained to the review jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal under the relevant procedural rules and whether an order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn could be reopened on factual contestations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the review power of the Service Tribunal under the procedural rules is restricted to correcting clerical errors or exceptional circumstances, rather than resolving contested factual questions regarding whether an appeal was voluntarily withdrawn when the appellant was admittedly present at the hearing. Examining the inquiry on merits, the Court found no substance in the challenge. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction under Rule 22 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 to review an order beyond correcting clerical mistakes?
- Can a party reopen an appeal dismissed as not pressed by challenging the factual recording of withdrawal when they were present at the time of the order?
- Does the Registrar of the Service Tribunal have the authority to dispose of an application seeking review or recall of a Tribunal's order?
- Rule 22, Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was removed from service by order dated 21-7-1988, who was serving as a Laboratory Assistant in the DHQ Hospital, Kasur. The action was initiated on the report of Mst.
Khurshid Bibi wife of Rehmat Ali in which she had complained that on 15-3-1988 when she and her companion came to the hospital, Moeenullah petitioner and Muhammad Hanif misbehaved with them. The Medical Superintendent ordered for an inquiry and all the three persons against whom complaint had been made, were suspended. An inquiry officer was appointed who held enquiry on 2-4-1988 and 6-4-1988. He submitted his preliminary report on 6-4-1988. On the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and one Dr. Nasim Ahmad Chaudhry, Ophthalmologist, DHQ Hospital, Kasur was appointed as authorized officer. The inquiry officer then fixed the date and after examining the witnesses and accused, report was submitted holding that the petitioner was guilty of attempt to rape Mst. Khurshid Bibi and was also guilty of mishandling her. A show-cause notice was issued and ultimately the petitioner was removed from service. He filecl an appeal in the Service Tribunal, but on 22-12-1991, it was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner was present on that date. On 20-1-1992, he filed an application that he had not withdrawn the appeal and no such intention was indicated to the learned Member of the Tribunal.
Meanwhile the petitioner brought a fresh Appeal No,42 of 1992, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 14-9-1992. In the meantime the application filed on 20-1-1992 was sought to be pressed, but it was noticed that the Registrar had disposed it of by order dated 20-1-I992. The petitioner then filed Constitution petition before the High Court, but while disposing it of, it was observed that the petitioner may bring the fact into the notice of the Tribunal itself or may seek relief from the Supreme Court against the order of the Registrar. The petitioner again came up before the Tribunal maintaining that his application was still pending and the Registrar had no authority to 'dispose it of. The Tribunal heard the application and dismissed it on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review its order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under rule 22 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 and in view of Muhammad Yousaf v. Government of Pakistan (1992 SCM R 1748), the Tribunal could have reviewed its,-order. So far the review is concerned, it is in respect of clerical mistakes or such situations as stated in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, but here the controversy was as to the factual aspect of the case and to decide whether the allegation made by the petitioner was correct. The petitioner was present when the order was passed and he challenged it on 20-1-1992 almost after a month. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is being knocked out on mere technical ground, we have examined the proceedings before the inquiry officer and also the inquiry report and do not find any merit in their petition. Leave is refused.