' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal is directed against the order passed on 7-12-2000 by the Service Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the appellant, herein, for the grant of stay order was dismissed.
2. Admitted facts are that in the light of an inquiry conducted under the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, the appellant was awarded two major punishments. We was compulsorily retired from his service and recovery of alleged amount of loss to the Government was ordered to be recovered from his pension. In case the alleged loss was found more than the amount of his pension, it was ordered that the excess amount of loss would be recovered from 'him as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Land Revenue Act.
This order has been assailed by him before the Service Tribunal through an appeal which is still pending disposal before the Tribunal. Alongwith his appeal before the Service Tribunal the appellant moved an application seeking suspension of the above referred Government notification. The objections were invited from the respondents which were accordingly filed by them on 4-11-2000. On 7-12-2000 the application for interim relief, moved for the suspension of the impugned order, was dismissed by the Service Tribunal. This order has been assailed before us in appeal with the leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that vide notification of the Government dated 15-7-2000 his client has been awarded two major punishments, compulsory retirement from service and recovery of alleged amount of loss caused to the Government in the light of the inquiry report. According to the learned counsel the, inquiry committee has not specified any amount of all alleged loss in its report. He further argued that the alleged loss has now been ascertained by the Controller Printing and Stationery Department, and a copy of the same has been placed on the file of this Court by the respondent's alongwith their concise statement. The alleged loss has been determined at the back of the-appellant without associating him on 17-2-2001. This notification has been issued after a period of seven months after passing of the original order of retirement and recovery of alleged loss from the appellant. The appellant has now challenged this Government notification in the Service Tribunal through an amendment. He further argued that the inquiry which has been made basis for awarding two major punishments to his client was conducted against the spirit of the provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He further argued that without taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant the Service Tribunal dismissed his application for the suspension of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the order of the Service Tribunal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. No doubt the Service Tribunal on first two pages of the impugned order has mentioned in detail the facts of the respective pleadings of the parties and in para. 4 at page 3 it has 'also referred the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties but without deciding the points at issue the application for the suspension of impugned order was rejected through a telegraphic order whereas the Service Tribunal was expected to record reasons for the view which ultimately found favour with it so that this appellate Court may have idea that why the relief was not granted to the applicant. There is no dispute in law that granting of an injunction is purely within the discretion of the Court or Tribunal seized with the case. However, this discretion is required by law to be exercised in judicial, manner, that means that such discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Provisions of Civil. Procedure Code as far as they are applicable are followed in deciding appeal of civil servants by the Service Tribunal. Under Civil Procedure Code, the guiding principles for allowing or refusing the stay order, are that whether party applying for stay has got a good arguable case and whether balance of convenience is on its side, and in case stay is not allowed to such party, it would suffer irreparable injury. The Service Tribunal in the present case, has rejected the application seeking suspension of impugned order merely on the ground that department would suffer loss, whereas the Tribunal in our wisdom was required to decide, as to whether it would be necessary to preserve status quo until, the appeal is finally disposed of. This proposition should have been resolved by the Tribunal in the light of the guiding principle as laid down in Civil Procedure Code. A serious objection was raised before the Service Tribunal that in the impugned order no specific amount of the alleged loss was determined and further that even the Inquiry Committee has not specified any amount of alleged loss caused to the Department by the appellant during his tenure of service. Such vague order, therefore, was not sustainable. Now the Department has ascertained the amount and appellant has also challenged the correctness of this determined amount before the Service Tribunal by making amendment in his appeal.
' In this case the Service Tribunal has in our view failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the established norms of law and has given no reasons for passing order under appeal. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside order under appeal and remand the case to the Service Tribunal with the direction that after providing right of hearing to the parties, it shall pass fresh order on the application of the appellant for the suspension of impugned orders in accordance with law. We would have ourselves passed order in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties but that may prejudice the case of the either party before Service Tribunal. Till the matter of suspension of impugned order is decided by the Service Tribunal, the status quo shall be maintained.