Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1144 of 1976, decided on. 23rd November, 1980.

(On appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 15‑10‑1976 in Appeal No. 287/12/1974).

‑‑S.4‑Petitioner in memorandum of appeal in fact taking a number , of grounds‑Tribunal dealing with only one plea‑Inference that none of other grounds were pressed before Tribunal.

---S. 4‑Service Tribunal can substitute order of reduction in rank with orders passed by departmental appellate authority.

Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1982.

‑The petitioner, a Qanungo, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 15‑11‑1976.

2. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally under the Ex efficiency and Discipline Rules. He was dismissed from service or 19‑8‑1969. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the dismissed order was substituted by an order of his reversion from the post of Qanungo to that of a Patwari for a period of two years. The petitioner then filed a Constitutional Petition which abated and the matter was take to the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 15‑11‑1971 partially accepted the appeal and converted the reduction in rank from Qanungo to the post of Patwari, into reduction to the lowest of the scale of Qanungo. The plea taken by the petitioner that as he never held the rank of Patwari, he could not be reverted to that post was given effect to.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he had challenged before the Tribunal the entire proceedings under the Efficiency sand Discipline Rules and the Tribunal was in error in not adverting to or disposing of the other grounds concerned with the merits of the inquiry and the action taken against him.

4. We find that though in the memorandum of appeal the petitioner, had in fact taken a number of grounds the only plea dealt with by the Tribunal is with regard to his reduction to a post lower than that which he held initially. It is reasonable to infer that none of the other grounds was pressed before the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that once the order passed by the Commissioner as the appellate authority was found to be defective in law the Service Tribunal could not substitute it by an order of its own as if it were the departmental authority. The Tribunal being the appellate forum was required to examine the factual as well as the legal aspects of the case and could after such examination afford relief permissible under the law and as could be granted by the departmental authorities. In substituting the order of reduction in the manner in which it was done the Tribunal has committed no error, of law.

6. We find no merit in the petition which is dismissed.

M. Z. M. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.