MUNIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs SECRETARY, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY, PUNJAB LAHORE and another
This petition challenges the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's services following departmental proceedings. The petitioner had faced three separate inquiries; while the first two exonerated him, the third inquiry resulted in findings of guilt regarding specific charges, leading to his termination. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal despite the petitioner's argument regarding the principle of consistency, given that other employees in similar circumstances had their cases remanded for de novo inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the principle of consistency is only applicable when facts and circumstances are identical. In this case, the charges against the petitioner differed from those of the other employees, rendering the principle inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it would not re-examine factual findings where the Inquiry Officer's recommendations were accepted by the Authority and the Tribunal declined to interfere under its statutory powers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as no question of law of public importance was raised.
- Can the principle of consistency be invoked to challenge departmental proceedings if the facts and charges differ from those of other employees?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to re-examine factual findings of an Inquiry Officer under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary actions?
- Section 5, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition calls in question the validity of the order, dated 2-9-2002, whereby service appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that Munir Hussain Shah the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. Statedly the Inquiry Committee exonerated him from the charges levelled against him at the first instance. However, the second inquiry was conducted but without any improvement as the finding of the first Inquiry Officer were maintained. Later on third inquiry was initiated on the basis of allegations which were nine in number recommended against the petitioner as according to him some of the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The Authority accepted the recommendations and terminated the services of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Punjab Service Tribunal has been dismissed vide judgment, impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in two identical cases the Service Tribunal had remanded the cases to the Department for de novo inquiry but in the instant case instead of doing so it has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. In our view each case has its own facts and circumstances and has to be decided on its merits either by the Service Tribunal or by this Court.
As far as the principle of inconsistency is concerned it can only be invoked if there are identical facts and circumstances as well but in the instant case the position is different as the learned counsel frankly conceded that in the third inquiry the charges mentioned at S.Nos.6 and 7 were different from the charges which were levelled against the other employees whose cases have been remanded for de novo inquiry as such, the principle of consistency is not attracted in the instant case. It is contended by the learned counsel that the allegations against the petitioner have not been proved. This argument of the learned counsel is also without substance as the Inquiry Officer has opined/recommended against the petitioner and the recommendations made by him have been accepted by the Authority. The Service Tribunal in exercise of its powers under section 5 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 has declined to interfere with the same, therefore, we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot entertain such argument. Besides it, as no question of law of public importance has been raised warranting interference by this Court, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no substance in this petition which is dismissed and .