Mst. RAMZAN BIBI vs COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISES, PESHAWAR And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, a former Lady Searcher in the Customs Department, faced disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absenteeism on sixteen occasions and absence from headquarters during duty hours on sixteen other occasions between September and November 1984. Following a show-cause notice and subsequent removal from service, the petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which condoned the delay in filing but upheld the factual findings of misconduct. The petitioner contended that her absences were due to personal and family illness. The Supreme Court held that the factual findings recorded by the departmental authority and affirmed by the Tribunal were not subject to interference at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the gravity of the established misconduct. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
- Is a finding of fact recorded by a departmental authority and upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal liable to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is the penalty of compulsory retirement proportionate for a government servant found guilty of repeated unauthorized absenteeism?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The petitioner formerly Lady Searcher in the Customs Department posted at Peshawar, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 23- 11-1988 whereby her service appeal was accepted but only partly to convert removal from service into compulsory retirement.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that during the period of two months from 13-9-1984 to 13- 11-1984, she absented from duty, without prior permission from the competent authority, on 16 occasions and on 16 other occasions, she was found absent from the Headquarters Office during duty hours. After giving her a show-cause notice and obtaining the explanation from her, she was removed from service by an Order dated 19th February, 1985. After exhausting the departmental remedies, she appealed to the Service Tribunal on 4-1-1988. Her appeal was time barred but the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal upheld the factual finding against her, but considered the punishment too harsh and converted it into compulsory retirement.
3. The petitioner has appeared in person and stated that she had absented herself on account of her own illness and that of her son and that she had given applications or informed her immediate Officer about her absence.
4. The finding of fact recorded by the departmental authority and upheld by the Tribunal is not liable to interference at this stage. The punishment finally awarded is also proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed. No case for our interference is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.