1989 SCMR 280

JALALUDDIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 280

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No, 266 of 1982

Date1988-07-20

Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan

Authored bySaad Saood Jan

ResultPetition dismissed

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, a Patwari who was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings for preparing a false copy of the Khasra Girdawari, which was utilized by third parties to procure land in Cholistan. The petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner and the Punjab Service Tribunal were dismissed. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the departmental action and the rejection of the petitioner's explanation regarding his preparation of the false record. The Supreme Court held that since it was undisputed that the petitioner did prepare the false copy and his justification was rightly rejected by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the validity of the dismissal from service.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether a civil servant can be dismissed from service for preparing a false copy of the Khasra Girdawari?
Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding departmental proceedings without sufficient justification?

service lawdismissal from servicefalse recordKhasra Girdawaripatwarileave to appeal

ORDER

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a Patwari. He prepared a false copy of the Khasra Girdawari and gave it to Abdul Ghaffar and some others who attempted to procure land in Cholistan on the basis of that copy. Departmental proceedings were held against him and as a result he was dismissed from service. His appeals before the Commissioner and the Service Tribunal remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. I is not disputed before us that the petitioner had in fact prepared the false copy. His explanation is that the person who was recorded in the Khasra Girdawari as tenant had assured him that it was not he but those whom he mentioned in the copy were the actual tenants in the land in dispute.

This explanation was rejected by the departmental authorities and the learned Tribunal and we find no reason to take a different view in the matter. The petition is dismissed.