COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs JAMAL
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which modified penalties imposed on various employees of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the authority to modify a penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal is indeed competent to examine whether an imposed penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal may consider mitigating circumstances when reviewing disciplinary actions. In this instance, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal exercised its powers judiciously by modifying the penalties for certain employees based on their length of service and health, while maintaining the dismissal for another employee where no mercy was warranted. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to review and modify disciplinary penalties to ensure they are proportionate to the misconduct, provided the Tribunal's reasoning is not perverse or unjustified.
- Is the Service Tribunal competent to modify a penalty of dismissal from service imposed by a competent authority?
- Can the Service Tribunal consider mitigating circumstances when reviewing disciplinary penalties?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to determine if a penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense?
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal, directed against judgment dated 26-11-2002 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, are being disposed of by this common order whereby the departmental appeals preferred on behalf of respondents have been partly accepted and the penalty imposed by the competent authority was modified with the following observations:-
12. The last question to be answered is the harshness or otherwise of the penalty imposed. The authority had dismissed all the appellants from their service through a single order dated 4-5- 2002. In the case of Dr. Jamal Butt and Dr. Muhammad Naeem Mughal, both former Medical Officers, Social Security Hospital, Gujranwala, in BS 17 have put in a number of yearsin the service and have still a long way to go. Penalty of dismissal from service would foreclose their future permanently from securing any job in their profession. I, therefore, convert the penalty of dismissal from service into removal frOm service. As far as the case of Dr. Shehbaz Mehmood Rana and Dr.Muhammad Munir Rana, is concerned Dr. Shehbaz was inducted in service on 31-12-1980 and has about 22 years' service to his credit, being in BS-19 at the time when the impugned order was passed. Similarly. Dr. Muhammad Munir Rana, working as T.B./Chest Specialist in BS-20 has more than 25 years of service to his name and I am told that he is not keeping good health. Penalty of dismissal from service in their cases would be extremely harsh to impose at the fag-end of their career. Resultantly, I convert the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement.
However, in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad Bajwa, Junior Clerk, no mercy can be shown and his penalty of dismissal from service is maintained."
2. The prime contention of Mr. Faizur Rahman, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution (petitioner) is that the penalty once imposed by the competent authority could not have been altered in any manner whatsoever by the Punjab Service Tribunal as no such power has been conferred upon it.
3. We have carefully examined the prime contention as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have also perused the judgment impugned. There is no denying the fact that respondent had admitted in a categoric manner that prescription was made under duress, influence and fear of their immediate boss which is highly regrettable. The respondent could not A have shown moral courage to resist such unlawful practice but they preferred to save their employment by facilitating the malpractice and corruption which i's a classic example of erosion of moral values in the elite class. Be as it may, the charges have been proved. The only question to be determined is as to whether Service Tribunal was competent to modify the penalty of dismissal from service to that of removal from service?
The answer would be in affirmative because the Service Tribunal is competent to examine as to whether the imposed penalty does commensurate with the gravity of offence or otherwise? The A mitigating circumstances can be taken into consideration by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal.
The Tribunal after having gone through the entire record has modified the penalty as per details mentioned hereinabove by advancing cogent reasoning which could not be regarded perverse or unjustified. The modifications as made by the Tribunal meets the ends of justice.
' In sequel to the above mentioned discussion we are of the view that the learned Punjab Service Tribunal has exercised its powers judiciously, in accordance with law and settled norms of justice.
The impugned order being unexceptionable does not warrant any interference. The petition being merit less is dismissed and .