ABDUR REHMAN vs THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, FAISALABAD and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement from WAPDA service. The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid, was compulsorily retired for misconduct following an altercation with a Medical Superintendent regarding the treatment of his sick child. The Tribunal had set aside the compulsory retirement order but substituted it with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments, treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's decision to impose a reduced penalty of stopped increments was legally sustainable after setting aside the compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was just, fair, and free from legal flaw, noting that the Tribunal acted within its competence to vary or alter the penalty based on the circumstances. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had applied its mind to the facts, and consequently, dismissed the petition, refusing to grant further leniency to the petitioner.
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal competent to vary or alter a penalty imposed by a department on a civil servant?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision that has been passed with due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Does the setting aside of a compulsory retirement order automatically preclude the imposition of a lesser penalty by the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 22-5-1979, the petitioner, Abdur Rehman was employed as Naib- Qasid in WAPDA. He was, however, ordered to retire compulsorily on 5th of April, 1995 in lieu of misconduct having been committed by him. The Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad partially accepted the appeal of the petitioner with the observations:-- "It was also pointed out that the appellant lodged a complaint against the Medical Superintendent on 5-4-1994 for not properly treating his child who was sick with pneumonia and running high temperature of 106 degree, and was under emergency treatment. According to him the medicines prescribed by the lady doctor were not approved by the Medical Superintendent. It was asserted that the Medical Superintendent lodged his complaint on 6-4-1994 in retaliation to the complaint filed by him to respondent No,1 .
' One thing is quite obvious that the infant son of the appellant was suffering from pneumonia and running high temperature. It appears that the appellant lost his tamper when the Medical Superintendent did not agree to the medicines prescribed by the lady doctor. We do not endorse this sort of behaviour with a responsible officer like the Medical Superintendent but keeping in view the psychological strain and the trauma under which the appellant must have been because of the grave illness of his son, the penalty awarded seems to be rather harsh and excessive. The same stands reduced to stoppage of two annual increments without any future effect. The period of absence from duty i.e, compulsory retirement to his rejoining the department, in consequence of this order, be treated as extraordinary leave without pay."
' The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has been assailed by the petitioner through this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner himself has argued the case. He states that there is no justification to stop his two annual increments, specially, when his compulsory retirement order has been set aside being improper and illegal.
3. We do not agree with the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order of the Tribunal appears to be just and fair. He has been reinstated in service by the Tribunal by setting aside his order of compulsory retirement from service. He is, therefore, required to remain satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal which does not suffer from any legal flaw. A lenient view has been taken by the Tribunal and no further leniency can be shown to the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The Tribunal is, undoubtedly, competent to vary, alter or suspend the impugned order in lieu of valid grounds in accordance with law. The impugned judgment has been passed with due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed by refusing leave to appeal.