ATHAR SAEED ANWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, challenged his dismissal from service following an inquiry into allegations of preparing a bogus allotment order under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. An Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty, and the competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner, dismissed him under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1999. The Punjab Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the dismissal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he had been transferred from the relevant seat at the time of the incident, that the inquiry procedure was flawed, and that the documents in question did not bear his signature. The Supreme Court observed that the inquiry was conducted in conformity with the applicable rules, and the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Finding that the departmental authorities and the Tribunal had recorded concurrent findings of fact, the Court held that it would not substitute these findings absent exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the Court determined the petition lacked merit and did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance, refusing leave to appeal.
- Can the Supreme Court substitute concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal in service matters?
- Does a petition challenging a service dismissal based on factual disputes involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1999
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 13-7- 2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No,2613 of 2000.
2. The petitioner was posted as Junior Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. A charge-sheet was issued against him along with the statement of allegations. He submitted his reply thereto. A Magistrate was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who held the inquiry and found the petitioner guilty of preparing bogus allotment order in the name of one Khurshid Ahmed under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. A mutation was also entered in the Revenue Record on the basis of the allotment order which was, however, cancelled subsequently. On receipt of the inquiry report, the competent authority afforded him opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, by order dated 14-4-2000, dismissed him from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1999. After availing the departmental remedies, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal No,2613 of 2000 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13-7-2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that at the relevant time the petitioner was no more posted to the seat dealing with the allotment of land from where he had already been transferred. It was further submitted, that the Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority was not supposed to call for the complainant and to record his statement against the petitioner. It was next submitted that the bogus allotment order in question did not bear his signature nor the same was in his handwriting. Even the number of the so-called allotment order was not written. The Departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal misdirected themselves in coining to the conclusions based on conjectures and surmises.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the available record. We find that the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted by a Magistrate in conformity with the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and defence. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the competent authority. The Tribunal also took pains to re-examine the case of the petitioner on merits but dismissed his appeal. The findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Departmental Authorities as well as by the Tribunal need not be substituted by.
This Court, without their being any exceptional circumstances. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of pubic importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.