MAQBOOL AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a sub-accountant from service following a departmental inquiry into allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities. The petitioner's penalty was initially reduced from dismissal to removal from service by the appellate departmental authority, a decision subsequently upheld by the Provincial Service Tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the petitioner's misconduct were supported by the record and whether the disciplinary action was justified. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the evidence, noting the petitioner's admission of depositing money under the wrong head of account, making unauthorized payments, and the absence of required powers of attorney in the record. The Court held that these findings sufficiently established the petitioner's unauthorized actions and misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that disciplinary findings based on established facts and admissions do not warrant appellate intervention.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the findings of a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary action when the record supports the allegations of misconduct?
- Does an admission of depositing money in the wrong head of account and making unauthorized payments constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as sub-accountant in the Tehsil office at Okara.
2. After a regular departmental inquiry on the allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities, he was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, Multan Division. He preferred a departmental appeal which was partly accepted by the Secretary in the Finance Department inasmuch as the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to removal from service. He then filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. ' In support of this petition it is urged that there was no evidence of defalcation against the petitioner and as such the penalty imposed on him was entirely uncalled for. It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal examined the entire record and found: ' We feel that the appellant's admission that he deposited the money in the wrong head of account and that he made the payments to Shamshad Ali and Abdul Qayyum, is sufficient to warrant the disciplinary action taken against him. Moreover, the fact that the powers of attorney were not to be found and that there was no mention about their existence in the relevant record, lends credence to the allegation that the appellants's actions were not above board. That he acted without authority is established beyond doubt. If there was any extenuating circumstance its benefit has already accrued to him in the form of modification of the punishment from dismissal to removal from service by respondent No,2"
4. ' In view of the above findings of the learned Tribunal, no case for interference by this Court has been made out. The petition is dismissed.