GHULAM SHABBIR vs DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER and others
The petitioner, an ex-Chaukidar in the Food Department, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his dismissal from service. The disciplinary action arose from the theft of Bardana valued at Rs. 60,000 from the godown where he was posted in 1985. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the theft would not have occurred had the petitioner been present on the date of the incident. The petitioner contended that safety measures and electricity arrangements were unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any error of law or raise any question of public importance in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the dismissal from service.
- Whether a civil servant can be dismissed from service for negligence leading to the theft of departmental property?
- Does the absence of proper electricity and safety arrangements absolve a watchman of liability for theft from a godown?
- On what grounds will the Supreme Court interfere with a factual finding upheld by the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Ghulam Shabbir son of Ghulam Hussain, resident of Kaloorkot, Ex- Chaukidar P.R. Centre, Kaloorkot District Bhakkar seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-10-1988 whereby the appeal filed by him against his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. ' Allegation against the petitioner was that he being a Chaukidar in the Food Department was posted at Kaloorkot P.R. Centre in the year 1985 when Bardana valuing Rs,60,000 was stolen from the godown. Disciplinary action was taken against him and after all the essential legal formalities had been complied with the Enquiry Officer found that he was not present on the date the theft was committed otherwise the theft would not have taken place. He reported as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} All these facts were taken into consideration by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the safety measures were unsatisfactory. There was no proper arrangement of electricity. The petitioner as such was not to be blamed.
4. ' The contention is devoid of force. The counsel has not been able to point out any error of law or otherwise in the impugned judgment nor there is any question of public importance to be examined by this Court. Dismissed.