Syed HUSNAIN AAMER vs TEHSIL MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAROWAL

ORDER

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 15-7- 2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,2460 of 2002.

2. The petitioner, a former tax clerk in Town Committee Qila Sobha Singh, District Narowal, was proceeded against departmentally under the provisions of Removal From Service (Special Powers)

Ordinance, 2000, on various allegations. He was dismissed from service, by order, dated 11-7-2002, passed by the Tehsil Municipal Officer, Narowal. His representation there-against remained undecided. Therefore, he preferred appeal No,2460 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dated 15-7-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor the proceedings against him were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The petitioner had already been acquitted of the criminal charge against him. Therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others (2001 SCM R 269). The learned counsel submitted that the inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry against the petitioner, was biased against him.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the available record. We find that a regular inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer during course of which evidence was recorded, in the presence of the petitioner who had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him. There were serious charges of misappropriation of public money as well as prolonged absence from duty. Mere allegation of bias against the inquiry officer was not sufficient to assume bias. The Tribunal after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, had .Rightly concluded that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. We are not expected to substitute our findings for that of the Tribunal as well as that of the departmental authorities. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan so as to warrant interference by this Court. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.