' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The appellant/petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, dated 25-7-2003. The petition was fixed before this Court on 1-12-2003 and leave was granted and operation of the judgment was also suspended.
2. The service of the respondent has already been effected. Mr. Walayat Umar Advocate-on- Record had filed power -of attorney wherein it was mentioned that Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court would appear on behalf of the respondent. The case appeared in the regular cause list at Serial No,2. The name of the Advocate-onRecord and Advocate Supreme Court appeared in the cause list. Despite repeated calls no body entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, therefore, we have no other option left except to decide the case ex parte against the respondent in his absence.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also mentioned subsequent events after leave granting by this Court. The respondent had attained the age of 60 on 30-11-2006. The pensionary benefits in terms of original order had been deposited by the appellants in his account. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Service Tribunal had erred in law to accept the appeal of the respondent on the ground that all the allegations mentioned in para.3(1) against the respondent were either declared advisory by the competent authority or expunged by the competent authority. He submits that grounds in order, dated 2-10-2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2919/BC of 2000 were not expunged or declared advisory by any competent authority as evident from letter, dated 4-6-2001. He further submits that the learned Service Tribunal had observed that respondent had filed representation before the competent authority against the adverse remarks. His representations were dismissed and against that respondent had filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which were dismissed and thereafter the same were upheld by this Court vide order, dated 11-12-2000 passed in C.P.L.As. Nos.823-L and 824-L of 1998. He further urges that learned Service Tribunal had erred in law to accept the appeal of the respondent while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Mrs. Bilquis Begum's case 2003 PLC (C.S.) 187 wherein Mst. Bilquis Begum was civil servant. He further maintains that dictum laid down by this Court in cases of civil servants are not applicable in stricto senco to the cases of Judicial Offices as the parmeters prescribed by this Court qua the judicial officers are entirely different. He relied upon (1) K.M. Sohel's case 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253 (2) unreported judgment, dated 12-12-2005 in C.P.C.No,2866 and (3) unreported judgment, dated 4-12-2006 in C.Ps. Nos.3252 and 3254 of 2003. He sums up his arguments that learned Service Tribunal had passed the impugned judgment by misreading and non-reading of the record.
4. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
It is admitted fact that learned Service Tribunal had misread the record as is evident from paras.3 to 6 in case the same be read with the material on record. It is a settled law that Courts/Tribunals are duty bound to decide the case after judicial application of mind as law laid down by this Court in Gouranga Mohan Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158. In view of misreading of the record by the Service Tribunal, the appeal is accepted and impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside. The same shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Service Tribunal which shall be decided by the Service Tribunal afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
5. In view of what has been discussed, appeal is accepted and remanded to the learned Service Tribunal.