SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN vs THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajjad Ahmad Khan, an Ex-Drilling Supervisor, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10-7-1984, which upheld his dismissal order passed by the Director of Agriculture. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted and held responsible for misusing the government's drilling/boring plant and causing shortages of lining pipes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's factual findings and dismissal of the appeal warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Tribunal was not subject to any exception, as the Tribunal had duly examined the relevant record, considered the factual position, and ensured compliance with applicable rules and instructions. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental misconduct and misuse of machinery will not be interfered with where no legal infirmity or rule violation is shown.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual findings of the Punjab Service Tribunal in a service matter?
- Does the misuse of official machinery and shortage of departmental material constitute valid grounds for dismissal from service?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Ex-Drilling Supervisor, Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10-7-84 whereby his appeal against the dismissal order by Director Agriculture was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was working as Drilling Supervisor Sargodha. He was charge-sheeted for misusing the Drilling/Boring plant of 10" and 8" dia etc. The Tribunal after going through the record of the case held the petitioner responsible for the misuse of the drilling plant and for the shortage of lining pipes of 6" and 5" dia.
3. ' The Tribunal examined the relevant record, took into consideration the factual position and also made sure that there had been no violation of any rule or instructions and ultimately dismissed the appeal.
4. ' We don't think the judgment of the Tribunal is subject to any exception. Not a fit case for leave.
5. Dismissed.