Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 679

NAJIB ULLAH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD and

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 679
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,259 of 1986
Date1988-11-22
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byAli Hussain Qazilbash
ResultLeave to appeal refused
Summary

This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service as a Patwari. The core legal question concerns whether the Supreme Court should re-appraise evidence in service matters where a full-fledged departmental enquiry has been conducted with adequate opportunity of defense. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it declines to re-appraise evidence at the leave stage and that no question of law of general importance is involved. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally re-appraise factual evidence in service matters when the departmental tribunals have concurrently found against the employee after a fair and regular inquiry.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a service matter at the leave to appeal stage?
  • Does a service matter involving a departmental inquiry of a Patwari necessarily raise a question of law of general importance?
service tribunaldismissal from servicepetition for leave to appealre-appraisal of evidencepatwaridepartmental enquiry

ORDER

' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4-1-1986.

2. Najib Ullah petitioner was a Patwari and he was charge-sheeted by the Collector, Faisalabad. He pleaded not guilty but the Enquiry Officer found him guilty and the Collector after hearing the petitioner dismissed him from service on 30-6-1983. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 30-10-1984 and the appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on 4-1-1986.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted against him and he was provided with ample opportunity to defend himself. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted us to re-appraise the evidence which at this stage we decline to undertake. Further, no question of law of general importance is involved in this case. The petition is dismissed.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.