MAQBOOL AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which upheld his removal from service. The petitioner, formerly a Sub-Accountant in the Tehsil Office at Okara, was subjected to a regular departmental inquiry regarding allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities. He was initially dismissed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, but his departmental appeal resulted in the penalty being modified from dismissal to removal from service by the Secretary in the Finance Department. His subsequent appeal to the Provincial Service Tribunal was dismissed. The core legal question addressed is whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the petitioner's unauthorized acts and admissions justified the disciplinary penalty. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's own admissions of depositing money under the wrong head of account and acting without authority warranted disciplinary action, leaving no ground for interference. The court laid down the principle that concurrent departmental findings based on established admissions and absence of record do not warrant interference by the apex court in a petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Service Tribunal based on admissions in a departmental inquiry?
- Does the deposit of money in the wrong head of account and acting without authority constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action?
- Can a penalty of removal from service be sustained when established through a regular departmental inquiry and upheld by the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as Sub-Accountant in the Tehsil Office at Okara.
After a regular departmental inquiry on the allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities, he was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, Multan Division. He preferred a departmental appeal which was partly accepted by the Secretary in the Finance Department inasmuch as the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to removal from service. He then filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that there was no evidence of defalcation against the petitioner and as such the penalty imposed on him was entirely uncalled for. It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal examined the entire record and found:-- "We feel that the appellant's admission that he deposited the money in the wrong head of account and that he made the payments to Shamshad Ali and Abdul Qayyum, is sufficient to warrant the disciplinary action taken against him. Moreover, the fact that the powers of attorney were not to be found and that there was no mention about their existence in the relevant record, lends credence to the allegation that the appellant's actions were not above hoard. That he acted without authority is established beyond doubt. If there was any extenuating circumstance its benefit has already accrued to him in-the form of modification of the punishment from dismissal to removal from service by respondent No,2."
In view of the above findings of the learned Tribunal, no case for interference by this Court has been made out. The petition is dismissed.