DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a junior clerk, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry, but the Service Tribunal re-examined the evidence, found the charges unestablished, and set aside the removal order. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a factual re-appraisal of evidence by the Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that since the Tribunal's decision rested on the re-appraisal of evidence and no substantial question of law of public importance arose, leave to appeal must be refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with factual findings or re-appraisals of evidence by a service tribunal unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the re-appraisal of evidence by the Punjab Service Tribunal when no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
- Can the Service Tribunal set aside a departmental removal order after re-examining the evidence led during the inquiry?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑The respondent was serving as junior clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Faisalabad. After a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal re‑examined the evidence and held that the charges framed against him were not established. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal and set aside the order of his removal from service. The department concerned seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal.
2. The order of the learned Tribunal is based upon re‑appraisal of evidence which was led against the respondent during the course of the departmental inquiry. No substantial question of law of public importance arises for consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.
3. M.I./D‑19/S Petition dismissed.