Mst. SARWAT QAMAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against her removal from service. The petitioner was initially appointed as a PTC Teacher but was subsequently removed by the District Education Officer, Lodhran, on the grounds that her appointment order was illegal, bogus, outside the merit list, and contrary to government policy. Her departmental appeal was similarly dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted regarding the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal concerning the forged and meritless nature of the appointment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact showing the appointment order was a forged document and that the petitioner was never selected by the District Recruitment Committee could not be reviewed or interfered with, as the impugned judgment suffered from no legal infirmity. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal regarding a forged appointment order?
- Does an appointment order made outside the merit list and without selection by the District Recruitment Committee sustain removal from service?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal suffers from no legal infirmity?
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 30.12.2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in appeal No, 2570/2000.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a PTC Teacher. However, she was removed from Service by order dated 22.5.1999, passed by the District Education Officer, Lodhran, on the grounds that her appointment order dated 30.12.1992 was proved to be illegal/bogus, being out merit and against the Government policy Her appeal was also dismissed by the Director of Elementary Education, Multan, by order dated 2.8.1999. Therefore, the petitioner preferred service Appeal No, 2570/2000, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of removal of the petitioner from service was inconsistent with the show-cause notice and that proper inquiry had not been conducted by the departmental authorities. It was further argued that there was nothing on record to show that the order of appointment had not emanated from the competent authority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. The departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal have recorded their concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was never selected by the District Recruitment Committee nor did her name figure in the merit list and that the appointment order No, 336 of the petitioner was a forged document as the said number was nowhere found in the dispatch register.
We are not expected to review the findings of fact recorded by the competent departmental forums and the Tribunal. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any defect or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this GII (petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.