THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others vs AHMAD NAEEM BHATTI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent from service. The petitioners, officials of the Post & Telegraph Department, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Authorised Officer and the Authority could be the same person without violating the law. The core legal question was whether the overlapping of functions between the Authorised Officer and the Authority in disciplinary proceedings causes inherent prejudice to an accused employee, thereby invalidating the penalty imposed. The Supreme Court observed that while the rules indicate a bifurcation of functions, the mere overlapping of roles does not automatically cause prejudice unless specific prejudice is demonstrated. However, in this specific instance, the Court found that because the penalty of dismissal—a major penalty—was imposed by an individual acting in the dual capacity of both Authorised Officer and Authority, the respondent was indeed prejudiced. Consequently, the Court held the Tribunal's judgment to be unexceptionable and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that prejudice must be established when functions overlap.
- Does the overlapping of functions between an Authorised Officer and an Authority in disciplinary proceedings automatically invalidate a penalty?
- Is prejudice a necessary element to be established when an individual acts in the dual capacity of Authorised Officer and Authority in disciplinary matters?
- Can a major penalty of dismissal be upheld when imposed by an official acting in the dual capacity of Authorised Officer and Authority?
ORDER
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4-10-1997 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,323(L) of 1997, filed by the respondent against the order of his dismissal from service. The petitioners who are officials of the Post & Telegraph Department have filed the present petition.
2. ' In support of the above petition Maulvi Anwarul Haq, learned Deputy Attorney-General has contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable as the Authorised Officer in question was also the Authority for the purpose of respondent and, therefore, the reason found favour with the Tribunal is not in consonance with law. We find that no such plea was urged before the Tribunal. However, even on legal plane the above contention merits rejection in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communication Division, Islamabad and 2 others v. Zamir Ahmed (1996 SCM R 630) wherein inter alia the following has been held:-- "....No doubt, the said rules indicate bifurcation of the functions of the authority and the authorised officer, and the nature of the two functions clearly show that the person who may be designated as an authority would be higher in rank than the person who may be authorised to perform the functions of the authorised officer but, notwithstanding, rule 6-A, as the person to be designated as the authority has not been vested with any kind of appellate powers over the latter, possibility of prejudice being caused to the accused by overlapping of the two functions appears to be remote.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also, failed to spell out anything that may lead to an inference that any prejudice had been caused to the respondent in the present case. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, appears to have little merit.
4. However, the Tribunal has simply relied upon its earlier judgment, which was not applicable in the present case, as was pointed out earlier. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to beet aside."
5. In the present case, since the penalty of dismissal which is a major penalty, was imposed which could only be awarded by the Authority and not by the Authorised Officer, the respondent was prejudiced by the factum that the same person acted in dual capacity, namely, as the. Authorised Officer as well as the Authority. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and, therefore, leave is refused.
6. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- PROFESSOR DR. GHULAM NABI vs AKRAM KHAN DURANI, CHIEF MINISTER N.-W. 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1232
- ABDUL KAREEM SAHITO vs through Director-General and 3 others 2005 PLC (C.S.) 311
- MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs ABDUL MATEEN KHAN, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS 2003 PLC (C.S.) 395