MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by Member-I of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which recalled an earlier interlocutory order suspending the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department. The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer, contended that the initial suspension order was passed by the Chairman and that the appeal had been assigned to Member-II, thereby rendering Member-I incompetent to recall the suspension. The core legal question was whether the tribunal's internal assignment of cases precluded a member from recalling an interlocutory order passed by the Chairman. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that the appeal was exclusively assigned to Member-II or that any rule prohibited Member-I from recalling the order. Noting that the recall of the suspension was consistent with the tribunal's practice in similar cases and that the main appeal remained pending, the Court held that the impugned order was legally sound. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming that no exception could be taken to the tribunal's exercise of its procedural discretion in interlocutory matters.
- Can a member of the Punjab Service Tribunal recall an interlocutory suspension order passed by the Chairman?
- Does the assignment of an appeal to a specific member of a service tribunal preclude other members from passing interlocutory orders in that matter?
ORDER
' 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, Zilla Council, Sialkot, recalling the interlocutory order, dated 26-11-1996 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, learned 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-II 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-II as contended by the petitioner.
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.