THE COMMANDANT, 502, EME CENTRAL WORKSHOP, RAWALPINDI And Others

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---The Commandant, 502, E.M.E. Central Workshop, Rawalpindi and four others have filed this petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-3-1995 whereby appeal of the respondent employee has been partly allowed and the penalty of his removal from service has been converted into that of "reduction to three lower stages in his the scale for a period of three years w.e.f. 7-3-1994 without cumulative effect".

2. Respondent, an L.D.C. In 502 Central Workshop, E.M.E., Rawalpindi quarrelled with his Head Clerk, physically assaulted him and hit him on his face. An enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and consequently he was removed from service with effect from 7-3-1994. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which as stated above was partly allowed in the aforesaid terms vide the impugned judgment.

3. We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney-General for the petitioners. His grievance is that the respondent having committed an at of grave indicipline by physically assaulting the head clerk was rightly removed from service and the Service Tribunal was not justified in reducing the punishment awarded to him in appropriate proceedings. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Tribunal has given good reasons for awarding lesser punishment to the respondent. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal that the quarrel between the respondent and the head clerk was a sudden affair. Both of them had subsequently compromised and gave a written assurance of good behaviour in future. The tribunal also took note of the fact that the respondent had already put in 7 years' service in the Department and in the circumstances, the penalty of removal from service was somewhat harsh. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has not controverted any of these observations/ findings recorded by the Tribunal nor is it denied that the learned Tribunal in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction was fully competent to modify and reduce the penalty awarded by the departmental authorities. We also find that the penalty imposed by the learned Tribunal is also one of the major penalties provided in the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.

4. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the Service Tribunal in awarding lesser punishment to the respondent is quite just and fair and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.