1989 SCMR 281

S. IJAZ HUSSAIN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 281

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No. 312 of 1982

Date1988-07-20

Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan

Authored byGhulam Mujaddid

ResultPetition dismissed

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner contended that he was unfairly singled out for disciplinary action while his superiors, who allegedly committed serious illegalities, were exonerated due to their official positions. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the Tribunal had reached its decision after duly considering the relevant facts and providing cogent reasons for the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the culpability of his superiors did not constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal. Emphasizing that the Court's jurisdiction to grant leave is contingent upon the existence of an error of law or a question of public importance, the Supreme Court determined that no such grounds were present in this case. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the Tribunal's decision in the absence of legal infirmity.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does an allegation that superiors were not punished for similar illegalities constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal against a service tribunal decision?
What are the criteria for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against a judgment of a Service Tribunal?

service appealleave to appealdisciplinary actionPunjab Service Tribunalquestion of lawpublic importance

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--S. Ijaz Hussain son of Ashiq Hussain seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 18-1-1982 whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed.

2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to establish that it was not the petitioner who was at fault. As a matter of fact his superiors committed serious illegalities but they on account of their official position were let off and the petitioner was made the scapegoat.

3. This is the solitary contention raised before us. But this is not good ground for leave to appeal. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, that the Tribunal decided after taking the relevant facts into consideration and giving cogent reasons for dismissing his appeal.

4. ' In the absence of any error of law or question of public importance to be examined by this Court, the leave is refused.