Muhammad Akram vs Abdul Ghafoor
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside orders against the petitioners and directed the initiation of fresh proceedings, including the issuance of show-cause notices and the provision of an opportunity for a hearing. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to remand a service matter to the competent authority for fresh proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Service Tribunal, acting as an appellate forum, is empowered to confirm, set aside, modify, or remand an impugned order provided there is lawful justification. The Court reasoned that remanding the case to ensure proper procedure and the issuance of a speaking order by the competent authority did not constitute an injustice to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that a Service Tribunal has the inherent appellate power to remand cases to the competent authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law and merits, particularly when procedural formalities were initially lacking.
- Does a Service Tribunal have the legal authority to remand a case to the competent authority for fresh proceedings?
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to set aside or modify an order impugned before it?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in the absence of a question of law of public importance?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.- These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against common judgment dated 10.10.2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been accepted with the direction to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioners by issuing show-cause notice and after affording proper opportunity of hearing and completion of necessary formalities further action should be taken. The above- captioned petitions involving similar questions of law and facts are being disposed of by this order.
2. Heard Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner at length. We have carefully examined the judgment impugned which is in consonance with the dictum as laid down by this Court in case titled Gohar Masood v. Secretary, Health Department (2001 SCM R 1128) whereby the competent authority was directed to - follow the prescribed procedure in letter and spirit and adjudication of service matter in accordance with law and merits. We are not persuaded with Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, learned ASC for petitioners that the matter could not have been remanded as the Service Tribunal is not empowered to do so for the simple reason that the Service Tribunal being appellate forum can, confirm, set aside or modify the order impugned before it or remand the case subject to lawful justification which is available in this case, In this regard we; are fortified by the dictum as laid down in cases titled M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22), Federation of Pakistan v. Rais Khan (1993 SCMR 609).
3. In view of the Service Tribunal, initiation of fresh proceedings was inevitable enabling the petitioners to furnish a proper reply regarding their reversion from the post of learning Co- ordinator to that of PTC teacher and accordingly the competent authority has been directed by remanding the case to dilate upon the issue with diligent application of mind and dispose it of by passing a speaking order. No injustice whatsoever has been done to the petitioner. The judgment impugned being free from any illegality does not warrant any interference. No question of law of public importance is involved which could persuade us to grant leave as contemplated in Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.