Rana BASHIR AHMAD vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL, EXCISE & TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department who was removed from service after being found guilty of tampering with official records. The core legal question concerns whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent removal under the disciplinary rules were lawfully conducted and whether any substantial question of law of public importance warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental action against the petitioner was taken strictly in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules following a regular inquiry and opportunity of hearing, and that no substantial question of law of public importance arose. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where departmental proceedings under civil servant efficiency rules are conducted in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of defense, concurrent findings by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance.
- Whether tampering with official record warrants removal from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Does an appeal against removal from service under disciplinary rules raise a substantial question of law of public importance when regular inquiry procedures have been duly followed?
- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioner was Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department. During the course of another departmental inquiry it was found that he had tampered with the official record. He was served with a fresh charge sheet and proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. After a regular inquiry in which he also participated the charges against him were found to be established. He was served with a show-cause notice and after being given a hearing he was removed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal but without any success. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This too failed.
He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The action against the petitioner has been taken strictly in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules. No substantial question of law of public importance arises for our consideration.
The petition is dismissed.