MUHAMMAD SARWAR BUTT vs Dr. RAFIUDDIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a laboratory attendant challenging his removal from service at Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The petitioner was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings initiated after he allegedly refused to perform his duties regarding a patient's blood investigation and insulted a medical officer. After failing to secure relief through departmental appeals before the Medical Superintendent and subsequently the Service Tribunal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Medical Superintendent possessed the legal competence to remove the petitioner from service and whether the disciplinary action was vitiated by bias. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims regarding the lack of authority of the removing officer or the alleged prejudice. The Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that in the absence of evidence or reference to relevant rules demonstrating procedural illegality or lack of competence, the disciplinary action taken by the hospital administration remains valid and undisturbed.
- Is a Deputy Medical Superintendent competent to remove a laboratory attendant from service in a hospital setting?
- Does a failure to participate in a regular departmental inquiry preclude a petitioner from challenging the resulting dismissal order on grounds of bias?
ORDER
' SAND SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as a laboratory attendant in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. On the evening of 20-4-1981 he was stated to have misbehaved with Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha when he not only refused to take the blood of a serious patient for immediate investigation but also insulted the said doctor. He was served with a charge-sheet and after a regular inquiry in which he refused to participate, he was removed from service by the Deputy Medical Superintendent. He filed an appeal before the Medical Superintendent but failed. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the Deputy Medical Superintendent was not competent to remove him from service and that in any event the said officer was prejudiced against him. When asked to substantiate his contention by reference to relevant rules and material, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to do so. This petition is accordingly dismissed.