BASHIR AHMADII vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter concerning disciplinary action taken against a Telephone Operator employed at the Lahore Airport Telegraph Office. The petitioner was charged with financial irregularities, specifically failing to issue receipts for telephone calls and withholding change from members of the public. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner's pay was reduced to the minimum of his time scale. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal modified the penalty to a reduction of two steps in the time scale. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the departmental inquiry and the subsequent modification of the penalty by the Tribunal warranted judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds for interference existed. The Court observed that the petitioner did not dispute the factual findings of three senior departmental officers who witnessed the irregularities, nor did he allege any bias or motive for false accusation against these officers. The judgment affirms the finality of factual findings in departmental proceedings absent evidence of malice or procedural impropriety.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings of a departmental inquiry where the petitioner does not dispute the observations of senior officers?
- Can a service tribunal modify a penalty imposed during departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Is an allegation of bias required to challenge the findings of senior officers in a departmental inquiry?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a Telephone Operator working at the Lahore Airport Telegraph Office. He was required to collect money at the rate of 85 paisas per call from the members of the public who used the facility of telephone installed in his office and to issue receipts to them. On 26-12-1979, the Deputy Engineer and two Assistant Engineers visited the petitioner's office incognito and watched the petitioner. They noticed that he was neither issuing any receipt nor, occasionally, returning the change. He was charge-sheeted and after a regular departmental inquiry, by way of penalty, his pay was reduced to the minimum of his time scale. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal partly accepted the appeal inasmuch as the penalty imposed upon him was varied to reduction by two steps in the time scale.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that any case for interference with the order of the learned Tribunal has been made out.The petitioner does not dispute that three senior officers of his department observed him in his office while committing irregularities. It was not his ease that these officers had any reason to make false accusations against him. The petition is dismissed.