Ishtiaq Anwar vs The Inspector General of Police Sindh & others
This petition arises from an order of the Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service for being a habitual latecomer and absentee. The core legal question is whether the departmental authority and the Tribunal were justified in dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, in the presence of conclusive documentary evidence and admissions by the employee. The Supreme Court held that where documentary evidence, including attendance sheets and biometric records, clearly establishes the misconduct and amounts to an admission by the petitioner, no formal inquiry is required under the law. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a formal inquiry can be dispensed with under the law when the documentary evidence and the employee's own explanations constitute clear proof and admission of the alleged misconduct.
- Whether a formal inquiry is mandatory under the law when documentary evidence and admissions establish misconduct?
- Can a service tribunal's order of compulsory retirement for habitual absence and late attendance be interfered with when based on well-discussed evidence?
- Does an unexcused explanation regarding official duties constitute an admission of unauthorized late arrival?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
1. Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.- This petition has arisen out of an order of the Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi in terms whereof petitioner was compulsory retired from service as being a habitual late comer and absentee. The documentary evidence against the appellant in that regard was well discussed in the impugned order. The appellant used to come late in the office and the plea that he had taken is that he had to arrange certain official events because of which he used to come late. This explanation itself goes against him in view of the fact that had this been the situation he could have sought such exemption or at least exemption of coming on time on the specific dates when the events were arranged, which he has not done. Therefore, this plea is in itself an admission on the part of the petitioner of coming late without intimation, particularly in view of the fact that the attendance sheet was placed on record which revealed that whenever the appellant was on outdoor duty it was marked as "Out Working". It is also well discussed in the impugned order as to how he has put his attendance in the bio-metric record though he was not on duty. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the documentary evidence was such that there was no need to hold an inquiry under the law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
2. We also do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. It is hereby upheld. Leave is refused and petition stands dismissed.