NAWABUD DIN vs WAPDA and others
The petitioner, an Accounts Assistant (Power) at the Area Electricity Board, Faisalabad, was removed from service following departmental proceedings regarding allegations of fraudulent preparation of pay bills for fictitious staff and misappropriation of funds. After his departmental appeal and subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal were dismissed, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, alleging his immediate superior was responsible for the fraud and that his prior admissions of guilt were coerced through threats of physical violence. He further relied on receipts allegedly provided by his superior. The Supreme Court observed that the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal had relied on the petitioner's admissions and rejected his explanations, including the validity of the receipts, which were deemed forgeries. The Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner were purely questions of fact and did not involve any question of law of public importance. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does a petition for leave to appeal based solely on disputed questions of fact satisfy the requirements for Supreme Court intervention?
- Can a petitioner challenge findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal when those findings are based on the petitioner's own admissions?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was posted as Accounts Assistant (Power) in the Area Electricity Board at Faisalabad. On the allegation, mainly, that he had fraudulently prepared additional sheets of pay bills in fictitious names of defunct and surplus staff and had drawn the amounts of the said bills, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. After a regular inquiry he was removed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Authority which proved unfruitful. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It appears from the record that before the inquiry and during the course of inquiry he admitted the allegation against him and refunded the amounts drawn by him.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was innocent and that his immediate superior was responsible for the preparation of the false bills and drawal of the amounts thereof. He relied upon certain receipts which were allegedly given to him by his immediate superior officer. As regards the admissions attributed to him he alleged that these were extracted from him under threats of physical violence.
4. The departmental authorities and the learned Tribunal have acted on the admissions made by the petitioner. They do not appear to have accepted his explanation with regard to the circumstances under which these were made. The departmental authorities have declared the receipts upon which the petitioner relies to be forgeries. The controversies raised in support of this petition relate to questions of fact. No question of law of public importance arises for consideration of this Court. The petition is dismissed.