MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another vs DIRECTOR FOOD and otherss
This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by Food Grain Inspectors challenging the decisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners were accused of causing financial loss to the public exchequer, amounting to Rs. 1,80,300 and Rs. 2,40,732 respectively. The Punjab Service Tribunal, upon reviewing the factual aspects of the cases, concluded that the petitioners were guilty of the charges leveled against them and upheld the penalty requiring the recovery of the lost amounts from the petitioners. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Tribunal's findings. The Supreme Court examined the petitions to determine whether they raised any substantial question of law of great public importance, a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. Finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such substantial question of law, the Court held that the petitions did not meet the criteria for interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the Tribunal's order regarding the recovery of the losses.
- What is the prerequisite for granting leave to appeal against a decision of a Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal if no substantial question of law of public importance is raised?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.3800-L and 3819-L of 2002 because the same arise out of similar facts.
2. In both these cases the petitioners were Food grain Inspectors who were accused of having caused a loss of Rs,1,80,300 and Rs,2,40,732 respectively to the public exchequer. The learned Punjab Service Tribunal in both these cases looked into the factual aspects of the matter and found that the petitioners had been rightly held to be guilty of the charges leveled against them and consequently maintained the punishment of recovery of the amount of loss from the said two petitioners. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners has not been able to point out any substantial question of law of great public importance which could qualify the petitioners for the grant of leave to appeal in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.