JAFFAR KHAN vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petitioner, employed as a sepoy, refused to obey an order to drive a car assigned to the Assistant Collector, leading to disciplinary proceedings, dismissal from service, and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could lawfully refuse to drive when he had previously worked in that capacity, and whether his refusal constituted insubordination. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly found guilty of insubordination and that he had indeed worked as a driver in his capacity as a sepoy, finding no legal infirmity in the Service Tribunal's decision. The Court laid down the principle that refusal to obey lawful departmental orders regarding assigned duties constitutes punishable insubordination, and finding no question of public importance involved, dismissed the petition.
- Whether a sepoy refusing to drive a vehicle when directed can be held guilty of insubordination?
- Does an employee's refusal to obey a departmental order justify dismissal from service?
- When will the Supreme Court grant special leave to appeal in service matters involving factual determinations?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 10th of January, 1978, by which Appeal No, 47 (K) was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner who is a driver refused to obey the order as on 6th of January, 1976, to drive the car of the Assistant Collector (Preventive), on the ground that he was a sepoy for which disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him and he was dismissed from service : and his appeal to the Central Board of Revenue against it was also dismissed. He next instituted the present appeal began the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, for redress but did not succeed as it was held that as a sepoy he worked as a driver and further that he was guilty of insubordination.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order on the short ground that being a sepoy he could not be ransferred against a driver's vacancy but that objection was decided against him as he was held to be working as a driver in that capacity. As for his act of insubordination, it was also established against him. As no legal question of any public importance is involved, we see no merit in this petition ; and equally there is no merit in his submission that he was not guilty of any wanton behaviour.
4. ' Accordingly, the petition is dismisses revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.