ISLAMABAD, Jan 31: Federal Services Tribunal (FST) Chairman Chaudhry Arif on Tuesday stressed on implementation of tribunal’s decisions.

Speaking at a seminar on service laws, organised by Pakistan Services Bar Association (PSBA), he said the Supreme Court would not take up appeals against the FST decisions, until the department had first implemented them.

The chairman further observed that the delivery of justice should reflect development in the society. He was of the opinion that the bar associations should give inputs regarding the syllabi of law courses.

Regarding the purview of FST and High Courts, he said the cases concerning the terms of service were the exclusive domain of the tribunal and the High Courts could not take up services cases.

PSBA President Shoaib Shaheen, in his presentation on laws related to disciplinary matters, called for following the full procedure required by the law before awarding penalty to any employee.

Elaborating the procedure for penalizing an employee, he said first there should be an order of inquiry followed by charge sheet and summoning of the accused and witnesses.

The witnesses should then be cross examined and the accused be given a chance to defend himself before the findings are submitted along with recommendations.

After the receipt of the report of the inquiry, he said, the department could then issue a show cause notice, after which personal hearing had to be held. The department can only impose a penalty afterwards.

“The law should take its due course,” Mr Shaheen maintained, and added that this requirement of completing the whole procedure was for all cases irrespective of the fact whether the penalty was major or minor.

The departments, he said, should communicate reasons to the accused in show cause notice if they opted not to hold a regular inquiry. In case, the departments do away with inquiry because of documentary evidence then this evidence has to be shared with the accused and quoted in the notice.

Mr Shaheen said the counsels for the petitioners should point out the irregularities in the procedure adopted for dismissal at the onset of proceedings in the tribunal before venturing into the facts of the case.

The onus to prove the allegations, rests with the prosecution and not the accused.

The PSBA president further said the Removal from Service Ordinance had an over-riding effect on other relevant laws except for pending cases. The previous laws have not been repealed as yet.

He contended that cases in which an employee had been penalized under a law other than Removal from Service Ordinance could be disposed off summarily by the courts.

Analyzing the differences between Removal from Service Ordinance and previous laws, Mr Shaheen said under the new law, role of authorized officer had been finished altogether and now only a competent authority could act; definition of misconduct had been changed; penalty could be imposed with retrospective effect; inquiry officer had to recommend the penalty; a departmental appeal against a decision had to be filed within 15 days instead of the previous 30 days; and services tribunal could be approached after 60 days if there was no reply to the departmental appeal.