WAPDA through its Chairman and another vs MUHAMMAD LATIF
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the High Court's acceptance of the respondent's appeal regarding his removal from service and consequential punishments, following his earlier acquittal by a Special Judge in criminal proceedings concerning the same accusations. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the respondent's exoneration by the Service Tribunal raised a question of law of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal did not raise any question of law of public importance. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal under such circumstances unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Does the exoneration of an employee by a service tribunal in departmental proceedings raise a question of law of public importance when criminal charges on the same facts resulted in an acquittal?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a service tribunal's judgment where no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by WAPDA; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondent's appeal against removal from service and other consequential punishments.
2. ' The respondent was also tried before a Criminal Court for the same accusation which formed the charge against him in the departmental proceedings. He was acquitted by the learned special Judge.
3. We, after having perused both the judgments--by the Special Judge and by the Tribunal, are of the view that the exoneration of the respondent by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment does not raise any question of law of public importance. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.