Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 661 to 663 of 1984, decided on 14th October, 1985.

(On appeal from judgment and order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑10‑1982 and 17‑10‑1982 passed in Appeals Nos. 1574(L)‑‑1841(L) and 17(K) of 1984).

‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 2(2) & (3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether according to scheme of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, it was permissible to designate same person as 'Authority' and also 'Authorised Officer' under sub‑rules (2) & (3) of r. 2 of said Rules.

-----Art. 212(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r. 2(2) & (3)‑‑Appeal‑‑Notification whereby definition of 'Authorised Officer' as given in cl. (3) of r. 2 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1973, meant an "officer authorised" by Authority to perform function of an Authorised Officer under Rules "or, if no Officer was so authorised, the authority", amended subsequent to dismissal/ compulsory retirement of respondents from service‑‑Tribunal deciding appeal of respondents in their favour but leaving question of consequential relief open to competent authority‑‑No prejudice was, therefore, caused to appellants by decision of Tribunal‑‑Decision of question on which leave was granted not considered necessary in view of finding of Tribunal‑‑Appeal dismissed.

Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy A.‑G. assisted by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants in (Civil Appeals Nos. 661, 662 of 1984).

Ch. Hameed‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by R.E. Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 661 of 1984).

Ex parte for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 662 of 1984).

Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985.

‑This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned three appeals which have arisen out of a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑10‑1982 and leave to appeal was also granted by a common order of this Court, dated 8‑4‑1984.

2. Leave was granted in these cases to examine the question "whether according to the scheme of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, it is permissible to designate the same person as the "Authority" and also the "Authorised Officer" under sub‑rules (2) and (3) of rule 2 of the above Rules".

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal and after hearing Mr. Munir A. Shaikh, learned Deputy Attorney‑General, we consider that in view of the admitted facts of the case and the concluding findings of the learned Tribunal, it is not necessary to decide the above question in these appeals which may be disposed of on a short ground.

4. The learned Service Tribunal has observed in para. 11 of the impugned judgment that it was not inclined to strike down the orders challenged before it by the respondents on a technical ground alone if no prejudice was caused to the appellants. It has been then said that;

"Since the appellants were deprived of the examination of their cases at two stages before the appellate stage, their interest was jeopardised, and it is difficult for us to uphold the orders of penalty passed on them."

5. On such consideration respondents' appeals were accepted and the orders passed against them were set aside with the reservation that if the notification designating the Authorised Officer and Officer was revised then:

(i) The report of the Inquiry Officer which has already been prepared is to be examined first by the Authorised Officer so designated and if he finds the accused officials guilty he will close the chapter.

(ii) If he finds the accused guilty but he considers the case where only minor penalty should be imposed, he would do accordingly. However, if in his view major penalty is called for, he shall have to send his report to the 'Authority' alongwith the report of the Inquiry Officer and the explanation of the accused Officer.

The judgment is concluded as under:

"The other course is to send the case to the President himself alongwith the inquiry report and the explanation of the accused officer for passing such order, as he deems fit, because in this case, there being no proper authorisation, the President himself is the authority and the authorised officer uptil now. The question of consequential relief to the appellants is being left open to the competent authority. If the proceedings are taken ahead then the authority or the authorised officer will pass orders in respect of the consequential matters. If, however, no further proceedings are taken, then the appellants shall stand reinstated with all the consequential benefits."

6.What had actually happened in the instant cases is that there existed an earlier notification by which the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' had been separately named. It was contended by the learned Deputy Attorney‑General that definition of the 'Authorised Officer' as given in clause (3) of rule 2 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 had since been amended according to which Authorised Officer meant an Officer authorised by the Authority to perform function of an Authorised Officer under the rules "or, if no Officer is so authorised, the Authority," and, therefore, no interference was called for is argument did not prevail with the learned Tribunal on the ground that such amendment was made subsequently on 8^th July, 1978 while Abdul Karim Sheikh was dismissed from service on 8‑5‑1978 and Mubarak Ali was compulsory retired from service on 30‑4‑1978.

7. The finding of the learned Tribunal, in these appeals in essence partain s to the violation of the rule of natural justice and is unexceptionable. Besides we find that no prejudice is caused to the appellants as the learned Tribunal has left the matter open for further consideration in the light of the observations reproduced hereinabove.

8. Mr. Munir A. Shaikh, learned Deputy Attorney‑General very frankly admitted that the course chosen by us for the disposal of e these appeals will meet the ends of justice.

9. With the above observations the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Appeals dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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