MUNIR AHMED vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD and another
This appeal challenges a majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his removal from service under the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, a Chief Inspector of Production in the Loco Shop, Mughalpura, qualified as a civil servant or a workman, and consequently, whether the Tribunal's adjudication process was procedurally sound. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the Chairman of the Tribunal had recorded an opinion in support of one of the two members of the original bench without providing notice or a hearing to the parties involved. Relying on the precedent set in Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Court held that the failure to grant a hearing before recording such an opinion vitiates the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh decision after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard. The principle established is that a Tribunal Chairman cannot record an opinion on a matter without first affording the parties a fair hearing.
- Can the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal record an opinion in a case without providing notice or a hearing to the parties involved?
- Does the failure of a Tribunal member to hear the parties before recording an opinion necessitate the setting aside of the judgment?
- Is a case remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal if the decision-making process lacked procedural fairness?
- Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
' AJMAL MIAN, CJ.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against majority judgment dated 22-2-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No,285(L) of 1991 filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalty of his removal from service under the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 dismissing the same by the above majority view.
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Chief Inspector of Production in Loco Shop, Mughalpura, was a civil servant or a workman.
2. Ch. Fazie Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents has candidly pointed out an order of this Court dated 31-5-1995 in the case of Qazi Khaill-ur-Rehman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.95/L to 97/L of 1994. The above petitions were converted into appeal and the cases were remanded to the Service Tribunal with the direction to decide to matters after fresh bearing of their counsel on the ground that the learned Chairman while recording his opinion in support of one of the two Members of the original Bench of the Service Tribunal had not heard the petitioners. In the present case, it appears that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal did not issue any notice to the appellant nor to the respondent before recording his above opinion. In this view of the matter, the above judgment of this Court is in all four is applicable to the case in hand as has fairly and candidly submitted by Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded. There shall be no order as to costs.