Munshi BAR KAT ALI, PATWARI vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a Patwari, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. He had been dismissed from service by the Assistant Commissioner on allegations of temporary embezzlement of government dues collected by him, which he failed to deposit in the treasury in a timely manner. His departmental appeals before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were unsuccessful. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his dismissal was illegal because no formal inquiry was conducted during the departmental proceedings. The core legal question was whether the dispensing with a formal inquiry vitiated the dismissal proceedings under the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that in light of the petitioner's own statement and admission before the Naib-Tehsildar and his failure to abide by his undertaking to deposit the recovered amounts, there was sufficient basis for the competent authority to dispense with a formal inquiry. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a formal departmental inquiry may be dispensed with where the accused's own admissions and uncontroverted conduct provide sufficient evidentiary basis for establishing the charge. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether a formal inquiry is mandatory in departmental proceedings when the accused admits to the default?
- Can the competent authority dispense with a formal inquiry in light of an admission made during a preliminary inquiry?
- Whether delayed deposit of government dues constitutes temporary embezzlement warranting dismissal?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a Patwari serving in villages Lao and Sabhaga of Tchsil Jhang. There was an allegation against him that he had made certain recoveries of Government dues but had failed to deposit them in the treasury. The Naib-Tehsildar held a preliminary inquiry and recorded the statement of the petitioner. Before the Naib-Tehsildar the petitioner undertook to deposit the amounts by 20-12-1979. He failed to abide by his undertaking. However, he did make the deposit sometime in the first week of March, 1980. His omission to deposit the amounts in the treasury soon after their recovery was treated as temporary embezzlement and he was served with a show-cause notice. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service by the Assistant Commissioner. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed. He filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but it failed on the ground of limitation. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the order of his dismissal from service was illegal inasmuch as no formal inquiry was held during the course of the departmental proceedings. There is no merit in this contention. The statement of the petitioner before the Naib-Tehsildar was available on the record in which he had undertaken to deposit the amounts. The very fact that he had not done so prior to appearing before the Naib-Tehsildar is evidence of the fact that he had kept the amounts with him. Further he undertook to deposit the amounts upto 20-12-1979 but omitted to do so for about another 3 months. In the circumstances, there was sufficient basis with the Assistant Commissioner to dispense with a formal inquiry. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25