MUHAMMAD JAFFAR TOOR vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA and 4 others
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, sought leave to appeal against an order of compulsory retirement from service, challenging the decision of the Service Tribunal which upheld the disciplinary action taken against him. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted on four grounds, leading to his compulsory retirement following a departmental inquiry. The Service Tribunal, after reviewing the record, concluded that the petitioner had removed government store articles in the early hours of the morning, rejecting his defense that the removal was for official work, particularly noting the suspicious timing involving his wife. The Tribunal further affirmed that the Authorised Officer was justified in proceeding against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the disciplinary procedure was inappropriate and that his explanation warranted consideration. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised were primarily factual and had been thoroughly addressed by the Tribunal. Finding no substantial question of law requiring further examination, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-examine factual findings made by a Service Tribunal in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a civil servant challenge a compulsory retirement order on the basis of factual disputes already adjudicated by a Service Tribunal?
- Does the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 constitute a question of law?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 6(3), Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against his compulsory' retirement from service.
2. ' The petitioner was charge-sheeted on four grounds. He submitted his reply. He was heard by the Authorised Officer on whose recommendation he was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 16-12-1981. He exhausted the departmental remedies, approached the Service Tribunal but did not succeed. On facts the Tribunal held as hereunder:- "After reading between the lines the reply of the appellant and other relevant record we have come to the conclusion that the appellant did remove the articles mentioned in the show-cause notice from the store in the early hours in the morning of 9-9-1981. Now the only question for determining is whether he did so bona fidely or for the purpose of misappropriation. We can easily repel the contention of the appellant that he did so in the interest of the Government work. It is very strange that wife of the appellant had admittedly come to him at 11-30 p.m. On 8-9-1981 and they wanted to go to Gujrat at 4-00 a.m. On 9-9-1981."
3. ' The Tribunal also found that the Authorised Officer was justified in proceeding against him under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
4. Mr. Ehsan Ullah Khan Lilla, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not a fit case for proceeding under Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and further that on facts the petitioner had a plausible explanation which deserved consideration and approval.
5. ' The questions raised by the petitioner are primarily of facts. We also find that the factual aspect of the case has received full consideration from the Tribunal. No question of law arises which may require further examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25
- GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE 2004 PLC(CS) 755