MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ vs PAKISTAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, an ex-Assistant Sub-Postmaster, from service on the charge of misconduct relating to the use of used postage stamps on registered letters. The core legal questions concern whether the proceedings were vitiated because the same officer conducted the raid, issued the show-cause notice, and passed the dismissal order, and whether the prescribed procedure under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules was violated. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the petitioner had voluntarily confessed his guilt in a written statement dated 15-9-1982. The key principle laid down is that a voluntary and true confession of guilt in writing obviates procedural objections regarding departmental inquiries.
- Does a voluntary and written confession of guilt by a civil servant cure procedural defects in a departmental inquiry?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a Service Tribunal order when the employee has confessed to the charge of misconduct?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad lshtiaq son of Karam Elahi, ex-Assistant Sub-Postmaster, F- Block Post Office, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 20-10-1987 whereby his appeal against his dismissal by order of the Deputy Postmaster General dated 25-3-1984 was rejected.
2. ' The petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct. Allegation was that used postage stamps were used on registered letters.
3. ' Learned counsel submitted that it was one and the same officer who conducted the raid, issued show-cause notice and dismissed the petitioner from service. As a matter of fact he was "everything". As such how could the petitioner expect justice.
4. ' Learned counsel further submitted that necessary procedure as contemplated by Efficiency and Discipline Rules was not complied with.
5. The petitioner gave statement in writing dated 15-9-1982 which we have perused. In this he confessed about his guilt. The statement was made voluntarily. It is the truth. Hence, we don't find any weight in any one of the submissions. The result is that the petition stands dismissed.