DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA ASIF
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of a Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of a Junior Clerk from service. The respondent, a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, had been dismissed following proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The Service Tribunal, upon reviewing the record, concluded that none of the charges leveled against the respondent were proven and further noted that, regardless of the findings, a regular inquiry was mandatory in the circumstances. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law of public importance that would justify the Court's interference with the Tribunal's findings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision to allow the respondent's appeal was sound, as the charges were unsubstantiated and the procedural requirement for a regular inquiry had not been met. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory before dismissing a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's factual findings in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999
ORDER
' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The respondent, Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal was proceeded against under the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. There were primarily four charges and was dismissed by the competent authority vide order 7-4-2000. His departmental appeal having been rejected, he approached the learned Tribunal. On examination of the record it came to the conclusion that none of the charges against the respondent stood proved. Accordingly, appeal of the respondent was allowed vide judgment, dated 27-4-2001. Leave is sought against this order. It was also noted that in any case a regular inquiry was necessary. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any substantial question of law of public importance to warrant interference by this Court.
2. This petition is dismissed. Leave is declined.