Mirza ABDUL QAYUM BAIG vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service by the State Bank of Pakistan. The Tribunal had held that because the petitioner's cause of action regarding his dismissal for misconduct arose on June 20, 1996, and his departmental appeal was rejected on November 11, 1996, he was not a civil servant at the time, thereby placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the Tribunal erred in this finding, arguing that the newly incorporated Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, introduced by Act XVII of 1997, possesses retrospective effect as it relates to procedural matters. The Supreme Court, noting reliance on previous precedents such as Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan, found merit in the petitioner's argument. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically determine whether the Federal Service Tribunal was legally justified in concluding that the petitioner's appeal was incompetent due to the timing of the cause of action.
- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 have retrospective effect regarding matters of procedure?
- Can a service tribunal decline jurisdiction over a dismissal case if the cause of action arose prior to the employee being classified as a civil servant?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal competent if the departmental appeal was rejected before the enactment of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5-3-1998, passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,2680-K of 1997, filed by the petitioner against dismissal order dated 20-6-1996 from service of the respondent on the ground of misconduct, dismissing the same for following reasons: "We have heard the., learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record. The appellant has been dismissed from service vide order dated 20-6-1996 as a result of disciplinary proceedings in case of embezzlement in prize bonds on different occasions. Admittedly he preferred a departmental appeal against the dismissal order on 16-7-1996 which was rejected vide order dated 11-11-1996. Thus, the cause of action accrued to the appellant during the period when he was not a civil servant. As such, the appeal does not fall within the ambit of jurisdiction of this Tribunal and deserves dismissal on this account alone. The counsel for the appellant could not satisfy the Bench on this point."
2. ' The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' In support of the above petition, Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the appeal was not competent as dismissal order was passed on 20-6-1996 and his departmental appeal was rejected on 11-11-1996. According to him, this is contrary to the view taken by this Court, inter alia, in the case of Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan and another (1998 SCM R 1603) in which it had been held that newly incorporated section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by Act XVII of 1997 had retrospective effect being amendment relating to matters pertaining to procedure.
4. Reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Afzal v.
5. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation through its Managing Director, Karachi (Civil Appeal No,1513 of 1998).
6. We are inclined to grant leave to consider as to whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner's appeal was not competent. Leave is accordingly granted.
7. Leave to .