BADSHAH HASSAN Versus INTERIOR MINISTRY
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a government servant, following disciplinary proceedings for unsatisfactory performance and willful absence. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary action was conducted in accordance with mandatory legal formalities and whether the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted properly, with all mandatory legal formalities under the relevant rules being satisfied and the petitioner afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court found the petitioner's habitual absenteeism and lack of interest in official duties clearly established by the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the action taken by the competent authority was neither whimsical nor arbitrary. The key principle laid down is that where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised, findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal based on evidence and record are not subject to interference by the Supreme Court.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised?
- Is a disciplinary order of compulsory retirement valid if the mandatory formalities under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were followed and the employee was afforded an opportunity of hearing?
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9‑3-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner against order dated 26‑6‑1998 of his compulsory retirement from service as a result of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Soldier Clerk on 10‑4‑1983 and subsequently promoted as Junior Clerk on 1‑11‑1985 but due to his unsatisfactory performance and wilful absence he was retired compulsorily from service on 26‑6‑1998. Being aggrieved a departmental appeal was filed which was rejected by means of order dated 18‑4-1998 which has been assailed by preferring an appeal before learned Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Khushdil Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner at length who mainly contended that necessary mandatory formalities as contained in the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were not adhered to which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and more so, the factual and legal aspects of the controversy has not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Federal Service Tribunal.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been examined with care and caution. The callous, careless and indifferent attitude of the petitioner towards official duties is demonstrative of the fact that he had never performed his duties seriously and remained absent on different occasions without intimation to the quarter concerned, amounting to misconduct. Being an unwilling worker he was sent back from 5 Wing Khyber Rifles contingent at Karachi and also from Milwad which reflects his conduct. After having a proper inquiry and completion of all the mandatory legal formalities as envisaged in the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and affording him proper opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has leniently been dealt with and retired compulsorily being habitual absentee, deserter and on account of lack of interest in official duties after payment of commutation amounting to Rs.2,04,715.64 with monthly pension of Rs.457.45 p.m. No injustice whatsoever has been done. The action taken by the Competent Authority is neither whimsical nor arbitrary in nature, but is based on sound reasoning, concrete and worthy of credence evidence and being unexceptional hardly calls for any interference an learned Service Tribunal has rightly declined to do so. It is well‑settled by now that "where no substantial law, muchless question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, a finding of Service Tribunal being a finding of fact would not call for any interference by Supreme Court". In this regard reference can be made to the case titled Ch. Muhammad Azim v. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others (1991 SCMR 255). Even otherwise a finding of fact recorded by Tribunal on the basis of record and evidence before Tribunal cannot be interfered by this Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the case titled Muhammad Nawaz v. Divisional Forest Officer, Jauharabad and 2 others (1982 SCMR 880).
5. In the light of foregoing discussion we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal and accordingly the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
S.A.K./B‑54/S
Leave refused.