DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA ASIF
This matter concerned a civil servant, a Junior Clerk, who was dismissed from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, following four charges. His departmental appeal was rejected, but the Service Tribunal allowed his appeal, finding that none of the charges were proven and that a regular inquiry was necessary. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, sought leave to appeal against the Tribunal's judgment before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, declining to interfere with the Service Tribunal's order. The Court held that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised to warrant its intervention, thereby affirming the necessity of proving charges and conducting a regular inquiry in such disciplinary proceedings.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's judgment in a civil service matter without a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Is a regular inquiry necessary in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant if the charges are not proven?
- 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.