Mst. SARWAT QAMAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld her removal from service as a PTC Teacher. The petitioner's employment was terminated by the District Education Officer, Lodhran, on the grounds that her initial appointment was illegal, bogus, and contrary to merit and government policy. The petitioner contended that the removal order was inconsistent with the show-cause notice, that no proper inquiry was conducted, and that the appointment order was valid. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the departmental authorities and the Tribunal had recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was never selected by the District Recruitment Committee, her name was absent from the merit list, and the appointment order was a forged document not found in the dispatch register. The Court held that it would not review concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent departmental forums and the Tribunal, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court review concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental forums and the Service Tribunal?
- Is a service termination valid when the initial appointment order is found to be a forged document?
- Does the absence of a candidate's name from the merit list and the District Recruitment Committee selection process justify removal from service?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 30- 12-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No,2570 of 2000.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a PTC Teacher. However, she was removed from Service by order, dated 22-5-1999, passed by the District Education Officer, Lodhran, on the grounds that her appointment order, dated 30-12-1992 was proved to be illegal/bogus, being out merit and against the Government policy. Her appeal was also dismissed by the Director of Elementary Education, Multan, by order, dated 2-8-1999. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal No,2570 of 2000, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 30-12-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of removal of the petitioner from service was inconsistent with the show-cause notice and that proper inquiry had not been conducted by the departmental authorities. It was further argued that there was nothing on record to show that the order of appointment had not emanated from the competent authority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. The departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal have recorded their concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was never selected by the District Recruitment Committee nor did her name figure in the merit list and that the appointment order No,336 of the petitioner was a forged document as the said number was nowhere found in the dispatch register.
We are not expected to review the findings of fact recorded by the competent departmental forums and the Tribunal. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any defect or legal infirmity 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.