DILBAR HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
The petitioner, a former Police Constable, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the acceptance of his resignation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's resignation was voluntary or coerced by departmental authorities, and whether the case involved a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contentions raised questions of pure fact rather than any substantial question of law of public importance, and that the Service Tribunal had properly examined the evidence to conclude the resignation was voluntary and tendered to avoid pending disciplinary proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with factual determinations of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution against an order of the Service Tribunal without a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Whether the question of whether a resignation was voluntary or coerced is a question of fact or law?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding a voluntary resignation?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-Petitioner Dilbar Hussain, was serving as a Police Constable in the Sahiwal District, and tendered his resignation on the 20th of December, 1971, which was accepted by the Superintendent of Police on the same day. It seems that he had second thoughts, and, accordingly, sent telegrams to the Deputy Inspector General, Multan Range and to the Inspector-General, Punjab, alleging that he had been coerced into submitting his resignation by the Superintendent of Police who was ill-disposed towards him for various reasons. Later he preferred an appeal against the acceptance of his resignation, but this was rejected by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on the 20th of March, 1974, and his representation was also rejected by the Inspector-General of Police on the 25th of October, 1976. Therearfer, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed on the 22nd of March, 1979. He now seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution.
2. ' It is submitted by Mr. Abdul Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to the detailed facts submitted before it to establish mala fides on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal District ; that similarly the Tribunal has failed to, appreciate the fact that the Deputy Inspector-General had condemned the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard; and he had decided the petitioner's appeal on incorrect data ; and that, in any case, there has been a misreading of material evidence by all the service authorities in refusing to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that his resignation was not voluntary.
3. Under Article 212 of the Constitution an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against an order of the Service Tribunal if a substantial question of law of public importance is involved ; but in the present case no such question has been raised. On the contrary, all the contentions and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner raise essentially one single question of fact, namely, whether the petitioner had resigned voluntarily or whether he was forced to do so by the Superintendent of Police for the reason that he or some members of his family were not well disposed towards the petitioner. We find that the Service Tribunal has examined all the relevant facts at considerable length before coming to the conclusion that apparently the petitioner had tendered his resignation to avoid disciplinary proceedings in several cases which were pending against him at the relevant time. We are not persuaded that the Service Tribunal has ignored any material evidence, or misread the same, in reaching its conclusions.
4. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMOON KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 608
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF vs Mrs. AASIA GONDAL and others 2010 SCMR 450
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF Versus Mrs. AASIA GONDAL 2010 PLC(CS) 357
- SULEMAN ALI HAIDERI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2004 SCMR 354
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2002 PLC(CS) 47
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25
- Dr. MUHAMMAD MUNIRULHAQ and others vs Dr. MUHAMMAD LATIF 1992 SCMR 2135
- Dr. MUHAMMAD LATIF CHAUDHRY vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 2 1986 PLC (C.S.) 602
- BABER GUL Versus SOHAIL AHMAD SHEIKH 2002 PLC(CS) 160