BASHIR AHMAD vs A.C., LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a Patwari, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 9-9-1981, which had upheld his dismissal from service on the charge of corruption ordered by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently affirmed in departmental appeal by the Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the departmental dismissal and the Tribunal's judgment upholding it were in accordance with the law and warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Tribunal was not open to any exception, as the dismissal order was lawful and based on relevant facts. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings and lawful disciplinary orders upheld by the Service Tribunal in service matters absent any legal error.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding a dismissal from service on charges of corruption?
- Is an order of dismissal passed by an Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner and Service Tribunal open to exception when found to be in accordance with law?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Bashir Ahmad son of Nur Muhammad, resident of Chhanga Manga, Tehsil Chunian District Kasur seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 9-9-1981.
2. ' Bashir Ahmad was working as Patwari in Halqa Jia Musa Tehsil and District, Lahore. He was dismissed from service, on the charge of corruption, by order of the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Lahore, dated 29-1-1980. The Commissioner Lahore Division rejected his appeal by order dated 12-4-1980 and same was the result when he went before Punjab Service Tribunal. Hence this petition.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel appearing in support of this petition and have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal after going through all the relevant facts and having made sure that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was in accordance with law, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. We don't think the judgment of the Tribunal is open to any exception.