Mst. SARWAT QAMAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and otherss
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed her service appeal against her removal from service as a PTC Teacher. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the fraudulent and bogus nature of her appointment order warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities and the Tribunal rightly concluded that the petitioner was never selected by the District Recruitment Committee, her name was not on the merit list, and her appointment order was a forged document. The Court affirmed that it will not review concurrent findings of fact absent any legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent factual determinations of departmental forums and service tribunals regarding forged and illegal appointments.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental forums and the Service Tribunal regarding an illegal appointment?
- Does an appointment order not emanating from the competent authority and missing from the dispatch register constitute a valid appointment?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of a service appeal where the appointment is proved to be forged and off-merit?
' 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 of 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 of 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 petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.