Haji ALLAH NOOR MALIK Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. The core legal questions were whether the department failed to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the departmental inquiry. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's defense regarding the scrap material was unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had been granted two opportunities to cross-examine the departmental witnesses but failed to appear, leaving the Inquiry Officer with no option but to proceed. The Court held that the findings of fact regarding the petitioner's responsibility for the removal of government property were supported by evidence and had been accepted by both the competent departmental authority and the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that factual findings in disciplinary proceedings, when properly supported, are not subject to interference.
- Can a petitioner claim denial of cross-examination if they failed to avail themselves of provided opportunities?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a Service Tribunal in disciplinary matters?
- Is a departmental finding of guilt sustainable when the accused fails to produce evidence to support their defense?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 2-7-2002 passed by the Punjab service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner who contended that department had failed to substantiate charge against him. Inasmuch as opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the petitioner on the statement of the witnesses produced by the department to substantiate charge against him. Therefore, on both these scores, impugned judgment rendered by Service Tribunal warrants interference.
3. On having taken into consideration the charge-sheet, the reply of the petitioner explaining thereby that a truck of load of scrap allegedly removed by him had been auctioned to a contractor, therefore, it being not the property of the Government would not warrant action against him. But record reveals that no document to substantiate the plea was produced by him. Similarly allowing him opportunity of cross-examination on the petitioner witnesses was not possible because despite of available two opportunities to cross-examine them, he absented himself, therefore, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the matter. Thus both the grounds being un-founded are not available to the petitioner.
4. The Inquiry Officer on having taken into consideration the evidence produced by the department had concluded that petitioner is responsible for removal of the full loaded scrap from the store and such findings have been accepted by the competent departmental authority and the Service Tribunal had also not interfered in the finding of fact so recorded by the department.
5. Thus no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. Petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./A-20/SC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.