MUNIR AHMAD vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a dismissed Patwari challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal. The core legal questions involved whether concurrent findings of fact regarding tampering with revenue records could be interfered with, and whether pending enquiries could be considered while determining the quantum of penalty after establishing guilt. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact based on record examination and handwriting comparison by the Tribunal, confirming concurrent findings of lower authorities, are not open to challenge under Article 212(3). It further held that once a finding of guilty is recorded, past service record and pending enquiries can legitimately be reviewed to determine the appropriate penalty, provided they do not form the basis of the finding of guilt itself. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down the principle that factual determinations by the Service Tribunal are final and past service records are relevant for sentencing in disciplinary matters.
- Can findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal regarding tampering with revenue records be challenged in a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Is it permissible to consider pending enquiries or past service records when determining the specific penalty to be imposed after a finding of guilt has been established?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a dismissed Patwari, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26-3-1986 by which his appeal too was dismissed.
2. The petitioner within months of his taking up appointment as Patwari was suspended, charge- sheeted and dismissed. The allegation against him was that he made interpolations in the Revenue Record and supplied incorrect copies of it and this was done deliberately and dishonestly.
The numerous other pending enquiries were also taken note of for deciding upon the penalty of dismissal.
3. Mr. A.H. Najafi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it remained unproved that the petitioner made the alterations in the entries in Revenue Record. Further, according to the learned counsel the pending enquiries should not have been referred to at all or made the basis for taking action against the petitioner.
4. As regards the first contention the Service Tribunal recorded the following finding:-- "The record of this case has been produced before this Tribunal today and has been examined carefully. The examination of the record clearly reveals that word 'Imam Bakhsh' stands added and same is in the hands of the appellant without any shadow of doubt, as this Tribunal has compared his other handwriting with the said interpolation. In view of the above findings of fact by the Tribunal which further confirms the concurrent findings on this issue made by the learned Assistant Commissioner and the learned Commissioner, the charge of interpolation in Khasra Girdawari in the hands of the appellant stands fully proved."
This finding of fact is not open to challenge in petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
5. As regards the second ground, after recording a finding of guilty, there is nothing wrong in reviewing the nature or quality of service rendered by the employee in the past with a view to determine the specific penalty that can be suitably imposed on him. The objection could have a plausible basis if such inchoate charges had been referred to or made basis of finding with regard to altogether different charges.
6. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is refused.
Cited by 4 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
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE 1993 PLC(CS) 737
- GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE 2004 PLC(CS) 755