Pakistan Case Law
2013 SCMR 780

MARAJUDDIN vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES and 2

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2013 SCMR 780
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,839-K of 2011 Appeal No,129(K)CS of 2003
Date2011-12-19
Judge(s)Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain
Authored byKhilji Arif Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, a former employee of the National Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld his removal from service. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted for misconduct, found guilty by enquiry committees, and subsequently admitted his guilt in writing while tendering an unconditional apology during a personal hearing with the Executive Director. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his confession was obtained under the assurance of exoneration. The Court reviewed the record and observed that the petitioner failed to produce evidence supporting his claim of coerced confession. The Court held that the departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, providing the petitioner with multiple opportunities to be heard, and that the removal order was based on the petitioner's own admission of misconduct. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and determined that no question of law of public importance was raised. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an admission of guilt during a departmental inquiry justify the imposition of a major penalty of removal from service?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 if no question of law of public importance is raised?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
misconductremoval from servicedepartmental inquiryunconditional apologyservice appealleave to appealquestion of law of public importance

ORDER

' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioner aggrieved from judgment dated 3-8-2011, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), seeks leave to appeal.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge sheeted twice on the allegation of misconduct and both the times, he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him by the enquiry committees constituted by the department. However, the authority i,e, Executive Director himself heard the petitioner at length and referred the matter for re-hearing to the authorized officer, who reported that the submissions made by the petitioner in his defence are unacceptable Thereafter, the authority i,e, Executive Director again provided the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, when he submitted his acceptance of the misconduct in writing and tendered an unconditional apology. Ultimately, the authority finding him guilty of the charges leveled against him imposed the major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. His departmental appeal as well as service appeal failed, hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a number of inquiries held against the petitioner and that the order of removal from service was passed on the basis of unconditional acceptance of his guilt of misconduct, which in fact was given by the petitioner on the assurance of the respondent that he will be exonerated from the charge leveled against him.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has not placed on record the document by, which he has accepted his guilt of misconduct despite opportunity was provided to him to do so on 8-12-2011. The respondent- department after providing opportunities of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order of removal from service, on the basis of serious allegation of misconduct, which he himself admitted during the course of personal hearing by the Executive Director. This order has been upheld by the learned Tribunal, which in our considered view bases upon record and does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. Additionally, no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been pointed out.

6. Resultantly, the petition lacking in merit stands dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.