ZAFAR YASIN vs PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and another
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a service matter where the appellant challenged an order of penalty involving the reduction by three stages in the time scale. The core legal question concerned whether an order of penalty that fails to specify the period for operation, in violation of Fundamental Rule 29, is legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal erred in pointing out the legal lacuna regarding the unspecified period without formally resolving it or passing an appropriate order in terms of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court set aside the matter and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision within two months. The key principle laid down is that a penalty of reduction in time scale under Fundamental Rule 29 must specify a definite period and cannot operate for an indefinite duration, and service tribunals must properly address such legal infirmities when deciding service appeals.
- Whether an order of penalty reducing a civil servant's pay by stages in the time scale can be made for an indefinite period?
- Can a service tribunal point out a legal lacuna regarding the absence of a specified penalty period without formally resolving it?
- Whether the Supreme Court can remit a service matter back to the Tribunal for failing to specify the operational period of a penalty under Fundamental Rule 29?
- Fundamental Rule 29
- Section 3-A(2)(b), Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---After arguing this appeal for some time. The learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to the last paragraph of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal, which reads as under:- "4. Before parting with this judgment, the impugned order of penalty suffers from legal lacuna, as specific period for which reduction by three stages in the time scale has to operate, has not been mentioned, and it is violative of the Fundamental Rule 29, as the appellant cannot be leprived for indefinite period, but for a specific period. Since this point has not been taken by any Member, therefore, it is beyond my scope as both learned Members have not taken (notice) of this legal infirmity. I would, therefore, suggest to the departmental authority to take into consideration this glaring illegality and pass an appropriate order under Fundamental Rule 29 as deem fit."
' According to him, the illegality relatable to failure on the part of both the learned Members of the Tribunal having been noticed by learned Chairman, the 'order of the Tribunal' by him in terms of clause (b) to subsection, (2) of section 3-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is not in order.
2. He further submitted that if the cause is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to specify the period in terms of Fundamental Rule 29, the appellant will be satisfied and, in that eventuality, will attend to the cause thereafter, if so required. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate-on- Record ,representing the respondents, did not controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. We are inclined to the view that the learned Tribunal should have resolved the question regarding the specification of the period for which penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale has to operate in the case of the appellant in line with Fundamental Rule 29. Failure on the part of the learned Tribunal to do the needful in the appeal of appellant-Zafar Yasin, can be remedied even now by remitting the matter to the Tribunal for its disposal anew, within a period of two months from today. Order accordingly.
4. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
Cited by 7 cases
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 11 others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 11 others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1230
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 20 others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others 2008 SCMR 1296
- Muhammad Sadiq Muzaffar Ali Rana Dilbar Hussain Syed Zamirul Hassan (K.L.R. 2008 Supreme Court 113)
- PROFESSOR DR. GHULAM NABI vs AKRAM KHAN DURANI, CHIEF MINISTER N.-W. 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1232
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others vs MUHAMMAD UMER MORIO 2005 PLC (C.S.) 169
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others vs MUHAMMAD UMER MORIO 2005 SCMR 436
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others 2009 PLJ SC 85