MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Patwari from service following a departmental inquiry regarding unauthorized interpolations in the Revenue Record. The petitioner challenged his dismissal, arguing that his alterations to the record were merely corrections of erroneous entries, a defense rejected by both the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the departmental inquiry and the Service Tribunal warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's contention essentially amounted to a request for the re-appreciation of evidence, which does not constitute a substantial question of law of public importance. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a significant legal issue, it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-examine factual determinations in service matters absent a substantial question of law.
- Does a challenge to the appreciation of evidence in a departmental inquiry constitute a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal in service matters?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a Patwari in Tehsil Lodhran of Multan district. After a regular departmental inquiry he was dismissed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which also remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main allegation against the petitioner was that he had made unauthorised interpolations in the Revenue Record. He admitted during the course of the inquiry that he had made certain changes in the record but explained that as the earlier entries were erroneous, he had merely corrected them. This explanation was not found satisfactory either by the departmental authorities or by the learned Tribunal.
3. The contention raised before us relates in substance to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law of public importance arises here for our consideration. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMOON KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 608
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF vs Mrs. AASIA GONDAL and others 2010 SCMR 450
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF Versus Mrs. AASIA GONDAL 2010 PLC(CS) 357
- SULEMAN ALI HAIDERI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2004 SCMR 354
- BABER GUL Versus SOHAIL AHMAD SHEIKH 2002 PLC(CS) 160