Munshi FALAK SHER vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 29-11-1982, which had dismissed his appeal against an order of dismissal from government service. The core legal questions involved whether the Assistant Commissioner could competently act as both the authority and the authorized officer under the applicable rules, and whether the purchase of land by a government servant in the name of family members without prior permission constituted valid grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Service Tribunal was in accordance with law and raised no question of law of public importance requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a Service Tribunal's factual findings regarding departmental misconduct and the dual capacity of an administrative officer under service rules will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning and consistent with the law.
- Can an Assistant Commissioner act as both the authority and the authorized officer under the applicable service rules?
- Whether the purchase of land by a government employee in the name of family members without proper permission constitutes misconduct.
- Does the concurrent finding of a Service Tribunal regarding departmental proceedings raise a question of law of public importance warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 29-11-1982 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. ' The Petitioner was charge-sheeted on various grounds. An enquiry was held and after issuing a show-cause notice a dismissal order was passed which was maintained on appeal.
3. ' The Service Tribunal examined the factual aspect as well as the legal aspect of the case and held as follows:- "We are satisfied that according to the rules the Assistant Commissioner could act as authority as well as authorised officer and there is no bar for the authority to act as an authorised officer in this case. Thus, this objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is overruled. As far as merit of the case is concerned, one fact is clear that the appellant purchased the land in the name of his wife and that too from the same Halqa and this fact is acknowledged by the appellant as well. He could not purchase such land worth thousands of rupees within his Halqa without the permission of the proper authority being a Government employee. This also leads to the presumption that the land purchased in the name of his brother was a mala fide transaction. As far as the tampering and change of the record is concerned, the above facts also prove that only he could have done the same being its ultimate beneficiary. We agree with the contentions of the respondents and are also convinced with the reasons given in the impugned orders which clearly prove the allegations against the appellant."
4. We find that the view taken by the Service Tribunal is in accord with law A and raises no question of law of public importance which may require further examination in this Court. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.