SALIM ASHRAF vs SECRETARY, FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB etc
This service matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal from service of a Sub Accountant, which was subsequently converted into compulsory retirement by the Service Tribunal following allegations of financial misconduct. The petitioner faced charges regarding the unauthorized processing of bills and the withdrawal of funds through fictitious means. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a major penalty was justified despite the appellant's contention that no regular inquiry was conducted and that he was not solely responsible for the financial irregularities. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's admission regarding the deposit of embezzled funds into the government treasury constituted sufficient proof of the charges. The Court further held that where documentary evidence and clear admissions exist, the absence of a formal, regular inquiry does not necessarily invalidate disciplinary proceedings, particularly when no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the accused. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the disciplinary action, noting that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised under the constitutional framework.
- Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory in disciplinary proceedings when the accused has admitted to the underlying facts of the charge?
- Does the absence of a regular inquiry invalidate a major penalty if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the employee?
- What constitutes a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in service matters?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.--Petitioner while serving as Sub Accountant was proceeded against in terms of the charge sheet as under:-- "(i) Three bills amounting to Rs, 14585/10, Rs, 2063/50 and Rs,14585/10 were passed by the DAO, Sialkot on 05.08.1998. These bills were neither scrolled, nor embossed with the special embossing sell by the DAO. However payments were got made by the accused official by affixing the special embossing seal of sub treasury officers, Pasrur.
(ii) A fictitious bill amounting to Rs; 185875/- was unauthorizedly scrolled by the accused official and the amount was drawn from Sub-Treasury, Daska on 13.06.2001."
2. The enquiry culminated in the award of major penalty of dismissal from service which penalty was converted into compulsory retirement. Leave was granted by this Court in terms of order dated 27.12.2010 which is as follows:-- "Inter alia contends that having held that it was merely negligence on the part of the petitioner and no regular inquiry was conducted by the department against others involved in the transaction, it was not open for the Tribunal to maintain the major penalty and merely convert the same into compulsory retirement.
Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, leave is granted, inter alia to consider the issues raised. As it is a service matter, office is directed to fix the main appeal within six months."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the evidence/ material collected during enquiry.
4. The foundational argument of appellant's learned counsel was that no regular enquiry was conducted; that the appellant was innocent; that he did not deposit the embezzled amount of Rs, 185875/- and it was one Ismail who deposited it; that in absence of regular enquiry, the major penalty could not have been awarded.
5. Having considered the submissions made, we find that neither in the grounds of appeal before the Service Tribunal nor before this Court, the appellant has disputed that he deposited the embezzled amount of Rs, 185875/- in government treasury through Haji Muhammad Ismail. The afore-referred admission proves the charge and in these circumstances, the findings rendered by the enquiry officer have not been found by us to be against the record. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding absence of regular enquiry is concerned, we find that in the face of the afore-referred admission and the documentary evidence on record, the regular enquiry was not called for in absence of any prejudice having been caused. No other question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been raised either. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.