FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Establishment Division vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal of the respondent, Muhammad Rafique, from his position as Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab. The respondent had been charged with misconduct regarding the illegal sanctioning of contracts and unauthorized expenditure, leading to his removal from service. Following a review petition rejection, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that none of the charges were established, subsequently ordering his reinstatement with full back benefits. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the matter involved only questions of fact that had been comprehensively addressed and resolved by the Service Tribunal in a well-reasoned order. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's findings. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution where the petition raises only factual disputes already settled by a competent tribunal.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in service matters involving only questions of fact?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Service Tribunal that exonerates a civil servant of misconduct charges?
- What is the threshold for granting leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in service matters?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The respondent Muhammad Rafique, who was serving as Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab, was served with a charge-sheet on 22-6-1977 for having allegedly committed misconduct. The allegations levelled against him were:-
(i) You illegally sanctioned the extension of contract of Karwan Trading Co. For the 2nd term, vide Order No. B.A. 111(21)/73, dated 10-3-1973.
(ii) You allowed road transportation of Food stocks on 7-2-1972 in violation of the rules on the subject.
2. (i.e) You sanctioned on 20-1-1973 ex-post facto expenditure to the tune of Rs.14,72,771.23 in road transportation.
(iv) You reportedly, through Mr. R.A. Zakir, on phone, informed accused contractors, vide their letter, dated 22-9-1973 that their rates at par with Railway Freight had been sanctioned.
(v) You gave ex-post facto sanction on 22-12-1972 for Rs.2,42,537.06.
3. The respondent denied the charges, but after inquiry, he was found guilty of charges (i), (i.e) and
(v) mentioned above and removed from service, vide Notification No. 9/12/77-C-11 (A), dated 9-4- 1979. His review petition, dated 7-5-1979 was rejected on 27-1-1981; whereupon he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
4. The learned Service Tribunal examined in great detail the material on the record pertaining to the charges on which the respondent was found guilty and in an elaborate order passed by it, wherein it has held that none of the charges have been established against the respondent, accepted- his appeal and set aside the impugned Gazette Notification No. 9/12/77-C-11(A), dated 9-4-1979 and passed an order re-instating him into service, with effect from 9-4-1979 with all the consequential back benefits. The Establishment Division now seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal.
5. Mr. Munir A. Sheikh, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has been heard.
6. We observe that only questions of fact are involved in the case and no legal question is being agitated. The factual aspect has been thoroughly examined by the learned Service Tribunal which has found as a fact that the charges levelled against the respondent have not been established and he has been exonerated of the same. The order of the learned Service Tribunal is a well- considered and well-reasoned order, which does not require any interference. In any event no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this matter and, therefore, this is not a fit case in which leave can be granted under Article 212 of the Constitution.
7. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.