SANAULLAH BUTT vs THE MASTER OF THE MINT, PAKISTAN MINT, LAHORE
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, which had challenged the termination of his services from the Pakistan Mint. The petitioner, employed as an Assistant Bullion Keeper, faced allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, and subversive activities, leading to departmental proceedings and an inquiry wherein he ultimately boycotted the proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to provide a separate show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiated the termination order, and whether important documents were wrongfully withheld during the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the contentions were without substance, ruling that the failure to supply a show-cause notice or inquiry report did not invalidate the proceedings in light of established precedent, and that the withheld document allegation was factually incorrect since the document was duly exhibited and the petitioner had chosen to boycott the inquiry. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the failure to provide a show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report vitiates an order of termination?
- Can a delinquent employee complain that a document was withheld when he boycotted the inquiry proceedings and failed to cross-examine the author?
- Whether departmental remedies ought to be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 24-3-1981 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Intra-Court Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of the writ petition wherein he had challenged the order of termination of his services.
2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Bullion Keeper in the Pakistan Mint at Lahore. There were allegations of misconduct, inefficiency and subversive activities against him. Consequently, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 31-8-1974 and departmental proceedings were taken. An inquiry was held into the allegations leveled against him. To begin with, he participated in the inquiry but later he boycotted the proceedings. In due course, the Inquiry Committee submitted its finding to the Master of Mint who terminated his services. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order by which his services were terminated. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that before approaching the High Court the petitioner ought to have availed of the departmental remedies. The petitioner then preferred an Intra-Court Appeal. It was heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench examined all the grounds which the petitioner had raised in this petition, found them without substance and dismissed the appeal.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that before the order of termination was made he was not given a show-cause notice nor supplied with a copy of the inquiry Officer's report; consequently, the order of termination was bad in law as it offended the principle of natural justice.
It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the decision of this Court reported as Dawood Cotton Hills Ltd. Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225. It is then contended that certain important documents were withheld from the petitioner during the course of the inquiry. This is factually incorrect. The only document to which the petitioner has been able to refer was duly exhibited during the course of the inquiry and the petitioner, if he so wanted, could ask the Inquiry Committee to summon the author of the document for the purpose of cross-examination. This he did not do. On the other hand, he chose to boycott the inquiry proceedings. He cannot now complain that the document in question was withheld from him.
4. We find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- UMAR AYYAR KHAN vs UMAR DARAZ KHAN And 10 OTHER 1990 CLC 1196