Qazi MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Foodgrain Supervisor, from service. The petitioner had been dismissed following a regular inquiry that found him guilty of a shortfall in wheat stocks and the creation of bogus records for fictitious dispatches. The petitioner contended that a co-accused had accepted responsibility for the shortage, that he had been acquitted in a parallel criminal case, and that the inquiry officer failed to prove the charges. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the competent authorities had satisfied themselves regarding the petitioner's guilt, including his own written admission of the shortfall and the fabrication of records. The Court held that it would not re-examine the evidence or conduct a partial inquiry into the facts. Concluding that the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by departmental authorities, when supported by evidence, are not subject to interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
- Does a criminal acquittal automatically invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court re-evaluate evidence in a service matter where departmental authorities have already established guilt?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 29- 8-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No,2614 of 2001.
2. The petitioner was a Foodgrain Supervisor. He was proceeded against along with other officials of huge shortfall of wheat procured by them at their centre. A regular inquiry was held in which he was found guilty. Therefore, on the recommendations of the Authorized Officer, the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur Division, being the competent authority, passed an order, dated 7-6-2000 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service along with recovery of the value of the shortfall of the wheat to be made from the petitioner and other delinquent officials in equal proportion. The petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the order, dated 19-10-2001, passed by the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore. Therefore, he preferred Appeal No,2614 of 2001, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 29-8-2002, passed by the Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the co-accused Muhammad Riaz had taken full responsibility for the entire shortage of the wheat stock. It was further contended that a criminal case was also-registered against the petitioner and others in which the petitioner had been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 2-2-2002. It was lastly submitted that the charge against the petitioner was not proved by the Inquiry Officer.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. We find that the Inquiry Officer, the Authorized Officer and the competent authority had satisfied themselves on the basis of record that the petitioner was guilty of the charge. It was found that the petitioner had also given in writing on 13-7-1999, that there was a shortfall of the wheat stock and that he had prepared the bogus record for the fictitious dispatches of 1770 bags A of wheat. We are not supposed to hold a partial inquiry in order to determine the guilt or otherwise afresh. The petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 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.