GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL) PSO and others vs Syed FAIZ ALI JILANI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified a disciplinary penalty imposed by the Pakistan State Oil (PSO) on its employee. The respondent had been dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings involving two charges. The Tribunal found that the first charge was not proven and determined that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate for the second charge, subsequently converting it into the stoppage of one increment. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the first charge was indeed proven and justified the original dismissal. The Supreme Court examined the Tribunal's findings and concluded that the assessment of evidence regarding the first charge was a finding of fact free from illegality. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's discretion in modifying the penalty for the second charge, noting that the dismissal was excessive. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law of public importance existed under Article 212 of the Constitution, and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's modification of the disciplinary penalty.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact made by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the proof of disciplinary charges?
- Is a penalty of dismissal from service disproportionate when the underlying charge does not justify such a severe sanction?
- Does a challenge to the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty involve a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- 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 two 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 .