MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal upholding his dismissal from service for misconduct involving unauthorized installation of meters and failure to recover consumer dues. The core legal questions relate to whether a mixed question of fact and law regarding the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, and whether concurrent findings of fact by departmental authorities and the Tribunal are open to interference. The Supreme Court held that a new legal question requiring factual resolution cannot be permitted to be raised at the belated stage of the Supreme Court, and that concurrent findings of fact suffering from no legal infirmity warrant no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down the principle that mixed questions of fact and law not raised before lower forums cannot be entertained for the first time.
- Can a mixed question of fact and law be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without showing legal infirmity?
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner an employee of Water and Power Development Authority, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 3-4-1986 whereby his service appeal against an order of dismissal from service passed on 10-12-1981 was rejected.
2. The Petitioner was dismissed from service on charges which were inquired into and the Petitioner was found guilty. His appeal was dismissed. He approached the Labour Court where the proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and ultimately he approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the punishment awarded to him by observing as hereunder:-- "All this clearly shows that the appellant was a party with Muhammad Anwar, ALM, who installed the meters without proper sanction and without recovering the dues from the consumers. The appellant being equally responsible for all these bunglings deserves the punishment he has been awarded.
' There being no merit in this appeal, we dismiss it with no order as to costs. Parties to be informed."
3. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the matter of legal rights and obligations, the Petitioner was governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance and as the charges were not framed and communicated against the Petitioner within the time specified in the Standing Orders Ordinance, he could not be prosecuted at all On merits it is submitted that the Petitioner could not have done all that has been attributed to him because he was not as a meter-reader supposed to do any of those things.
4. The first ground now taken up by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been taken up at any earlier stage nor adjudicated upon. The very question of law raised has a basis in facts and unless the facts are resolved this question cannot be adjudicated upon. It is too late to raise such a question.
5. As regards the second ground, a finding of fact has been recorded not only by the departmental authorities but also by the Tribunal dealing with the matter. The finding of fact does not appear to suffer from any such infirmity as may require examination at our level.
' Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- FAUZIA SIDDIQUE QURESHI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD 2004 PLC(CS) 781
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25
- GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE 2004 PLC(CS) 755