SHAHID-UL-QAYYUM and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Economic Affairs and Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-6-1994, which modified departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant, Shahid-ul-Qayyum, reducing them to stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect. The core legal questions involve whether penalties could be sustained when the tribunal found the petitioner's only fault was purchasing an air-conditioner without written approval and lacking direct responsibility for store shortages, and whether an inquiry is vitiated when a petitioner is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of justification for penalties and the vitiation of the inquiry due to denial of cross-examination required detailed consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioner employee and the Federation of Pakistan, establishing that procedural fairness regarding cross-examination and the proportionality of penalties based on established factual findings warrant full appellate review.
- Whether a departmental penalty can be sustained when the Service Tribunal finds the employee's only fault was a procedural omission without direct responsibility for loss?
- Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses vitiate a departmental inquiry?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the authority to modify departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant?
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---The abovementioned two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-6-1994 whereby order of the departmental authority imposing on the petitioner Shahid ul Qayyum major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Assistant Incharge for a period of three years and minor penalties of censure, withholding of next annual increment for a period of 3 years and recovery of loss of store items has been modified so as to reduce the penalties to "that of `stoppage of two increments' for the period of 2 years with cumulative effect".
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of C.P. No,405 of 1994 contends that the Service Tribunal having found that the air-conditioner purchased by the petitioner was installed in the office and, therefore, the only fault of the petitioner was that "he did not obtain written approval of the officer under whose directions, the A.C. Was purchased" and that it was not proved whether the petitioner was directly responsible for the shortage of store, there was no valid basis/justification for awarding any penalty to the petitioner. It is further contended that in view of the finding of the Service Tribunal that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, the inquiry stood vitiated with the result that it could not form the basis of any penal action against the petitioner. Contentions raised need consideration and leave is accordingly granted in C.P. 405 of 1994.
3. Leave is also granted in the connected petition (C.F. No,446 of 1994) filed by Federation of Pakistan as the judgment impugned therein is the same which forms the subject-matter of C.P.No,405 of 1994.