Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 368

FAIZ AHMAD vs DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, LAHORE And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 368
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 26-R of 1990 Appeal No. 301(R) of 1989
Date1990-02-18
Judge(s)Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian
Authored byAjmal Mian
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service as a postman in the Postal Department for withholding money order payments. The core legal question raised was whether the Tribunal erred by limiting its examination to procedural irregularities in the departmental inquiry rather than reviewing the proof of the charge. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contention was based on wrong premises because the Tribunal had in fact perused the record and concurred with the inquiry findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct. The key principle laid down is that where a service tribunal examines the record and concurs with factual findings of misconduct, a petition for leave to appeal raising unsubstantiated claims of limited review has no merits and will be refused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to examine whether a departmental charge was proved rather than only looking for procedural irregularities?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a service appeal where the Tribunal has concurred with the finding of misconduct based on the record?
service tribunalremoval from servicedepartmental inquirymisconductleave to appealpostal department

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9-10-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.301(R)/89 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed against the order dated 1-9-1985 of his removal from service of Postal Department.

2. The petitioner was working as a postman. He received certain amounts in respect of money orders, the payment of which he held up for some time. Upon receipt of complaints from the payees under the money orders, an enquiry was held against the petitioner in consequence whereof he was removed from service by the above order. The petitioner filed the above appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave.

3. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that it was only to examine the question, whether any irregularity in holding the enquiry was committed and not to examine the question, whether the charge was proved. According to him this is a question of public importance which needs examination by this Court.

4. Mr. Paracha's above contention is based on wrong premises as the I Tribunal has perused the material on record and concurred with the finding of the enquiry on the question of misconduct.

The factum that the petitioner had withheld the various amounts referred to in the charge sheet for some time stood proved. The petition has no merits. Leave is accordingly refused.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.