General Manager (Retail) PSO And Other vs Syed Faiz Ali Jilani
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the departmental penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent. The departmental authority had dismissed the respondent on the assumption that two disciplinary charges were proved. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the first charge was not proved by the evidence and that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the second charge regarding the recovery of dues. Consequently, the Tribunal converted the major penalty of dismissal into a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the finding of fact regarding the unproved charge suffered from no illegality and that the modification of the penalty was justified to allow the respondent to mend himself. The Court concluded that no question of law of public importance was involved under Article 212 of the Constitution, and accordingly dismissed the petition and refused leave.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact by the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution if no illegality is shown?
- Whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be modified to a minor penalty if it is found to be disproportionate to the nature of the proved charge?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. The respondent who was employee of the petitioners was proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings on to charges.
2. The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the departmental authority on the assumption that both the Charges had been proved. The appeal filed by the respondent has been partly accepted in that the Federal Service Tribunal held that charge No. 1 had not been proved, as regards second charge, the penalty was found to be disproportionate to the nature of the charge, therefore, the major penalty of dismissal from service has been modified and converted into stoppage of one increment through judgment dated 6.7.2001 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that charge No. 1 had also been proved, therefore, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was legally justified.
4. In the judgment of the Service Tribunal, the entire evidence and the material brought on the record has been scanned and it was held as a matter of fact that the said charge had not been proved which finding of fact has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality which would render the judgment as without lawful authority as such, no question of law of public importance as envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution is involved. As regards the other charge of the recovery of dues of the PSO. It has rightly been held that the nature of the same did not justify the major penalty of dismissal from service and the same had justifiably been modified and converted into penalty of stoppage of one increment so that the respondent may mend himself and make the recovery who is with the petitioners since 1987 as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.