MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_COLLECTOR, GUJRANWALA and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Patwari, from service. The petitioner was accused of embezzling land revenue collected from a Lambardar. Initially, a preliminary inquiry exonerated the petitioner, but the Collector disagreed with the findings and ordered a second inquiry. Following this second inquiry, where the petitioner was found guilty, the Collector dismissed him from service. The Commissioner and the Punjab Service Tribunal subsequently upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found consistent evidence indicating that the petitioner had received land revenue but failed to deposit it into the government treasury in a timely manner, thereby confirming the charge of embezzlement. The Court held that the disciplinary authority acted correctly in dispensing with the petitioner's services given the established misconduct. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit. The judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities may order further inquiries if dissatisfied with initial findings and that consistent evidence of financial misconduct warrants dismissal from public service.
- Can a disciplinary authority order a second inquiry if it disagrees with the findings of an initial inquiry?
- Does the failure of a public servant to deposit collected land revenue into the treasury constitute grounds for dismissal?
- Is the dismissal of a public servant justified when there is consistent evidence of financial misconduct?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 27-11-1985.
2. The petitioner was posted as Patwari, Circle Hardo-Deori, Tchsil Gujranwala. He obtained certain amounts from the Lambardar of village Dandian but he did not deposit the same in the treasury.
On the complaint of the Lambardar, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar. The petitioner did not turn up to defend himself and thus he was placed under suspension. The Collector then charge-sheeted him and a Magistrate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Magistrate after recording necessary evidence exonerated the petitioner. The Collector, however, did not agree and another enquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner and it was entrusted to Mehr Akbar Ali, Magistrate 1st Class, but the said officer was transferred and the enquiry was handed over to the City Magistrate. He held the petitioner guilty of charges and the Collector after hearing the petitioner dismissed him from service on 17-61984. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Gujranwala, on 23-12-1984, and that by the Tribunal on 27-11-1985.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the record has been perused. There is consistent evidence against the petitioner that he had received certain amount from the Lambardar as land revenue but he did not deposit the same in time and thus was guilty of embezzlement. The authority was, therefore, right in dispensing with his services. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
' Leave to