DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD and anothers vs AZIZ-
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal modifying the respondent civil servant's penalty of removal from service to reduction in rank. The respondent had been proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for unauthorized absence from duty and found guilty by the departmental authority. On appeal before the Service Tribunal, the respondent did not press the matter on merits but sought leniency, which the Tribunal granted by reducing the punishment and treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Service Tribunal was competent to modify the departmental penalty in the exercise of its discretion, and no relevant factor was shown to have been ignored. Furthermore, the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance under the Constitution. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to modify the punishment awarded by a departmental authority?
- Does the reduction of punishment by the Service Tribunal lie within its discretion?
- Does a petition against the modification of punishment by the Service Tribunal involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' FAZAL KARIM, J.---The respondent, Aziz-ur-Rehman, is U.D.C. Selection Grade-9 in the Regional Directorate of National Savings, Rawalpindi. He was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for unauthorised absence from duty, was found guilty and was awarded the penalty of removal from service by the departmental authority. He appealed before the Service Tribunal; there, he did not press his appeal on merits but prayed for leniency. The learned Members of the Tribunal referred to the fact that the respondent was a young man; that there had been no complaint against him and that he had been a well-behaved Clerk with clean record, and were inclined to take a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal from service "to that of reduction of his substantive post of U.D.C. (B-7) for a period of two years" with a direction that "the intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, and this order will be effective from the date of passing the original order viz. 28-8-1994".
2. The Director-General, National Savings, Islamabad and the Director, Regional Directorate of National Savings, Rawalpindi now seek leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's order.
3. We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney-General in support of the petition. There is no question that the Service Tribunal was competent to modify the order of departmental authority in the manner it did. The question whether the punishment should be reduced lay in the discretion of the Service Tribunal. It is not contended that any factor relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion, which may have weighed against the respondent was not taken into consideration.
Otherwise too, the case does not seem to involve a substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212, clause (3) of the Constitution.