MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Another
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 11-12-1996 passed by Member-I of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby an interlocutory order dated 26-11-1996 suspending the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department was recalled. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Member-I of the Punjab Service Tribunal was competent to recall the suspension order passed during the pendency of the service appeal, given the petitioner's contention that the appeal had allegedly been assigned to another member. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the impugned order recalling the suspension, especially as the petitioner failed to point out any rule supporting the contention regarding exclusive assignment, and noted that the suspension order was recalled following the practice in similar cases. The Supreme Court accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Whether a member of the Punjab Service Tribunal is competent to recall an interlocutory suspension order passed during the pendency of a service appeal?
- Does the assignment of an appeal to a specific tribunal member preclude another member from passing orders in the absence of a governing rule?
ORDER
1. AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 11-12-1996 passed by Member-I of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1681 of 1996, filed by the petitioner against the order of his repatriation dated 24-11-1996 to his parent department from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Zila Council, Sialkot, recalling the interlocutory order dated 26-11-1.996 suspending the above order of repatriation. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal 2.In support of the above petition Hafiz Tariq Nasim, warned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the above order of suspension dated 26- 11-1996 was passed by the Chairman and the aforesaid appeal was assigned to Member-11 by the Chairman, Member-I was not entitled to recall the above suspension order particularly when the case could not have been listed before him. However, he was unable to point out any rule, whereby the above appeal was marked by the Chairman to Member-11 as contended by the petitioner.
2. 3.It is an admitted position that the above appeal is still pending the above suspension order was recalled as it was done in other similar cases. We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.