SENIOR POSTMASTER, G.P.O., MARDAN and another vs NOOR DIN, POSTMASTER, GUJAR GARHI. MARDAN
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 17-7-1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which accepted the service appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent, working as a Postmaster, had been charge-sheeted for renewing Motor Vehicle Tax Registration Books without charging admissible penalty, thereby allegedly causing a loss of revenue to the Government. The departmental authority imposed a penalty of recovery of the loss amount upon the respondent, whose defence was that the renewals were made within the grace period of one calendar month as provided under Rule 14 of the Provincial Tax Rules read with Fundamental Rule 9(18). The Service Tribunal set aside the penalty, observing that the grace period included the last day of the month and that numerous routine inspections of the post office revealed no irregularities. Aggrieved, the department filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the grace period of one calendar month included the last date of the month. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was sound and free from infirmity, and consequently dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent findings regarding departmental rules and grace periods without any question of public importance do not warrant interference.
- Does the grace period of one calendar month under the relevant tax rules include the last day of the month for the renewal of Motor Vehicle Tax Registration Books?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary matters involving no question of law of public importance?
- Rule 14, Provincial Tax Rules
- Fundamental Rule 9(18)
' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 17-7-1995, passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby it accepted the service appeal filed by the respondent.
2. The respondent Noor Din was working as Postmaster, Sub-Post Office, P.S. Mills, Mardan. He was charge-sheeted on 5-8-1989 for renewing M.V.T. Registration Books without charging admissible penalty thereon, and thereby causing loss of Rs,28,840 in revenue to the Government. The respondent contested the charge and his defence was that all the Registration Books were renewed within a month of the grace period as provided by Rule 14 of the Provincial Tax Rules read with F.R.9(18), and as such no penalty was to be charged from the book owners even if it was renewed on the last day of the month, as the grace period allowed under the rules was one calender month, which included the last day of the month. The reply of the respondent did not find favour with the Senior Postmaster, Mardan, who imposed the penalty in the form of recovery of Rs,28,840 from the respondent.
3. The respondent filed appeal to the departmental authority, which was rejected. He thereafter, filed appeal before the learned Service Tribunal, who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. It was observed by the Tribunal that the grace period of one calendar month included the last day of the month, and as the M.V.T. Registration Books were admittedly renewed on the last day of the month, the penalty amount could not be recovered from the book holders. The Tribunal further observed that during the relevant period the senior officers of the post office made 22 inspections of this post office and examined the entire record/books and ledgers of the post office, but found no irregularity or omission/commission in collection of the tax by the respondent.
' Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the department has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that one calender month of grace period provided by the rules did not include the last date of the month, and, therefore, the Service Tribunal was not right in accepting the appeal of the respondent.
4. We see no force in the contention. This very contention was raised and adequately considered by the learned Tribunal and repelled for valid reasons reflected in the judgment, and the same do not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference. Also, no question of law of public importance is involved. This petition is accordingly dismissed, and leave is refused.