MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Rafiq, an Ex-Qanoongo of the Auqaf Department, who was dismissed from service on 24 August 1982 for approving a faulty and fictitious survey report regarding a graveyard without proper verification. His departmental revision before the Secretary Auqaf and his subsequent constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court were both dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dismissal order suffered from any error of law, breach of rules, or involved a question of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel was unable to point out any error of law, breach of rules, or refute the established charge, and no question of public importance was involved. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent decisions below.
- Whether a public servant can be dismissed for approving an unverified survey report containing fictitious entries?
- Does a petition against dismissal from service involving no error of law or public importance warrant leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Rafiq, Ex-Qanoongo, Auqaf Department, was dismissed from service on 24-8-1982. He approached the Secretary Auqaf in revision. That was dismissed on 22-7- 1984. Thereafter he filed a Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine by order dated 22-1-1985. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. ' The charge against the petitioner was that he, without due verification, approved the survey report of the Patwari Muhammad Afzal which pertained to graveyard Garhi Shahu. Alongwith the report there was a site plan attached whereby vacant space in the graveyard was shown as a shop in a fictitious manner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to urge anything substantial either by way of error of law or violation/breach of any rule. He could not even refute the charge. There being no error of law or question of public importance involved in this petition, leave is declined.
4. ' Dismissed.