Syed Arshad Ali, Member.--The petitioner Pakistan Rangers being aggrieved and dissatisfied filed a Review Petition under Section-4A of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act. 2014 assailing the judgment of this Tribunal dated 09.07.2015. The respondent, in terms of the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2015 has been reinstated in service with all back benefits, hence, this review praying that the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2015 be set aside.
2. The respondent Jamal Din son of Waryam Khan was appointed in Pakistan Rangers as Sepoy (General Duty) on 03.05.2008 and had been performing duties at Sindh Rangers Hospital at Karachi.
The review as envisaged under Section 4A of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2014 is reproduced hereunder as:-- "4A. Review.--(1) A Tribunal shall have the power to review its final order on a review petition filed by an aggrieved party within thirty days of the order on the following grounds, namely:--
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed;
(ii) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or
(iii) For any other sufficient cause."
(2) The Tribunal shall decide the review petition within thirty days.
(3) The Tribunal may confirm, set aside, vary or modify the judgment or order under review."
3. During the course of proceedings earlier on, no where it was insinuated or alluded that the respondent had developed illicit relations with fellow Inspector Dost Muhammad. It is evident from the inquiry report now available on record that prosecution witnesses were examined and opportunity to the respondent was given to cross-examine each and every prosecution witness, hence regular inquiry was conducted and due process was exhausted indeed. Moreover, it also revealed from the perusal of the inquiry report that the appellant himself had expressed his desire during the cross-examination that he no longer remained interested in continuation of his service with appellant's organization. In addition, it also transpires that all witnesses who were examined were found converging on the point that the respondent was inefficient and not interested to serve the Organization any longer.
4. Such being the position, we are of the considered view that review petition merits consideration; hence, allowed, the impugned judgment of this Tribunal dated 09.07.2015 is set-aside. No order as to costs.
5. Parties be informed.