RAHMAT KHAN vs UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service as a senior clerk at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The core legal question concerned whether the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed after a regular inquiry finding him guilty of unauthorized absence and falsely implicating two senior teachers in a criminal case, was open to judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the quantum of punishment falls entirely within the determination of the competent University authorities and that the penalty imposed was not excessive given the gravity of the misconduct. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with the quantum of administrative punishment determined by competent authorities following a regular and unblemished inquiry, unless the penalty is shown to be wholly disproportionate or unjustified.
- Whether the quantum of punishment awarded by a University authority in a disciplinary matter is open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a regular departmental inquiry resulting in a finding of guilt for absence and falsely implicating teachers warrant compulsory retirement?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order, dated 19-8-1982 of the Lahore High Court whereby his writ petition against the order of his compulsory retirement from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was senior clerk in the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. He was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation that he had remained absent without leave and that he had falsely implicated two senior teachers of the University in criminal case relating to his own abduction. After an inquiry, he was found guilty of both charges, Consequently, the Vice-Chancellor directed his compulsory retirement from service. He filed an appeal which was rejected by the Syndicate. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success.
3. It will be noticed that the order of his compulsory retirement was made after a regular inquiry.
The learned counsel appearing for him has not been able to show that the proceedings taken against him suffered from any infirmity. All that he has urged is that the penalty awarded to him was extremely severe. Apart from the fact that the quantum of punishment was a matter entirely for the University authorities to determine, the penalty imposed upon him does not seem to be, too, severe if we take into account the allegation that he had falsely implicated two teachers of the University in a criminal case.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.