COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF

ORDER

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J‑‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought for in this case against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 15‑2‑1996 passed in Appeal No.5‑L of 1996.

2. Muhammad Asif respondent was appointed as Naib Qasid in BPS‑1 on 30‑6‑1992 and subsequently selected as Driver on 14‑6‑1994. He was, thereafter, appointed as driver in BPS‑4 on 1‑8‑1994. At the time of his selection as a driver he had allegedly produced identity card in which he had forged his date of birth 1969 instead of 1964, as subsequently verified from Sub Divisional Registration Office, Wazirabad. During proceedings initiated under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 against the official, he was found guilty and as such removed from service with effect from 1‑7‑1995. The order of removal was challenged in departmental appeal without any success where after he approached the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 5‑L of 1996. The appeal was accepted on 15‑2‑1996 against which leave to appeal is sought for.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal in its order relied on the school leaving certificate of the respondent wherein his date of birth is recorded as 8‑10‑1969, domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala on 15‑11‑1992 showing the same date of birth, extract from the register of birth of the concerned Union Council showing 18‑10‑1969. All these documents were accepted by the Tribunal without giving a chance to the respondent for making an inquiry from the departments concerned.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised. The learned Tribunal dealing with material regarding date of birth of the respondent and the evidenciary value of the documents placed on file and relied upon observed as under:‑‑

"The learned counsel for the respondent while replying to the arguments on behalf of the appellant that the date of birth 1969 was also recorded in the school record offered that. if the appellant produces his school certificate, he will concede. The appellant on the direction of this Tribunal has produced as photocopy of school leaving certificate wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 8‑10‑1969. The original certificate was produced for inspection. Moreover, the appellant also produced a copy of his domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala on 15‑11‑1996 wherein his date of birth is recorded as 8‑10‑1969. Similarly, an extract from the register of birth of the concerned Union Council has also been produced where the appellant was reported to have born on 18‑10‑1969."

5. From the above, it appears that it was at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the photocopies of the aforementioned documents were produced under the direction of the Tribunal. The originals of such copies were also produced for inspection to which the learned counsel neither raised any objection nor asked for time to further verify its correctness.

For the reasons no exception could be taken to the finding of the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise the question involved on facts of the case is A not of public importance leave to appeal is refused and petition dismissed.

A.A./C‑178/S Leave refused.