Sh. NAZIR AHMAD vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE Through Chairman
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which, on remand from the Supreme Court, had dismissed his service appeal concerning the termination of his services as a J.V. Teacher. The Tribunal's majority view held the appeal non-maintainable, despite the Chairman's finding that the Supreme Court had previously settled the maintainability issue. The core legal questions revolve around the interpretation of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, specifically whether an appeal filed prematurely before the Tribunal becomes competent if the departmental appeal remains undecided after 90 days. A further question was whether the issue of appeal maintainability could be re-agitated before the Tribunal after a Supreme Court remand. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these provisions and contentions.
- Does an appeal filed prematurely before the Service Tribunal become competent if the departmental appeal remains undecided after 90 days?
- Can the question of appeal maintainability be re-agitated before the Service Tribunal after a case has been remanded by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision?
- What is the correct interpretation of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, regarding the maintainability of appeals?
- What is the correct interpretation of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, regarding the maintainability of appeals?
- Section 4(1)(a), Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974
- Section 21, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 18-5-1993 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby Service Appeal No. 114/1249/81 filed by him was dismissed.
2. The petitioner served as J.V. Teacher for over a decade when his services were terminated on 14- 1-1981 by District Education Officer, Sahiwal. He filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) on 23-2-1981 as also preferred an appeal before the Departmental Authority on 2-5-1981. The departmental appeal could not be finally decided when his appeal before the Tribunal came up for decision. His appeal before Tribunal came up for decision. His appeal was dismissed on 5-10-1982 by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had not availed of the departmental remedy before filing direct appeal before the Tribunal. It was also held on merits that he had availed leave without proper sanction obtained from the competent Authority.-
3. The petitioner challenged order of the Tribunal before this Court through Civil Appeal No. 505/88 which was allowed on 3-7-1991 holding as under:-- "That is so yet departmental appeal was being processed and had not finally been disposed of in 90 days' period when the appeal before the Tribunal came up for hearing and need not have been dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not filed an appeal before the departmental authority. Facts noted in the leave granting order quoted above show that the learned Tribunal should re-examine the whole matter afresh after calling for the record and hearing the parties.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Punjab Service Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law."
4. On remand, the learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents again attempted to reopen the question of maintainability of the appeal on the strength of the rule laid down by this Court in Muhammad Usman v. N.-W.F. Province (PLD 1983 SC 436) that the petitioner having not filed departmental appeal prior to filing appeal before the Tribunal the appeal was not competently filed before the Tribunal as envisaged under proviso to section 4(1)(a) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal, however, did not allow him to re- agitate the point, as according to him the same stood already decided by this Court in that very case. On merits, he found order of the departmental authority irregulate. He accepted the appeal and directed petitioner's reinstatement in service. The other to learned Members of the Tribunal did not concur with the view expressed by the learned Chairman and held in the remand order that this Court did not foreclose the question regarding maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal. Holding majority view they dismissed the petitioner's appeal being not maintainable.
Hence this petition.
5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the file, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case to examine the provisions of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in the light of the contention that 90 days having elapsed from the date viz. 2-5-1981, the appeal before the departmental authority was preferred, the premature appeal pending before the Tribunal became competent, before it was finally decided as also whether after the remand of the case by this Court the question of the maintainability of the appeal could be re-agitated before the Tribunal.