MUHAMMAD BINYAMIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service as a Lower Division Clerk. The core legal question concerns whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's service appeal on grounds of limitation and merits, where the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct involving the ante-dating of applications and accepting incorrect addresses. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as the departmental appeal and the appeal before the Tribunal were admittedly barred by time, and concurrent findings of fact regarding the proven misconduct were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on departmental misconduct, coupled with an appeal barred by limitation and devoid of legal infirmity, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation is maintainable?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Service Tribunal regarding employee misconduct?
- Is an employee dismissed after a regular inquiry entitled to relief when the departmental appeal and service appeal are both barred by time?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11-4-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No.2(R)/88 riled by the petitioner, dismissing the same against the order of his dismissal dated 6-5-1987.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Office, Gujar Khan Sub-Division of Respondent No.1 (i.e. Wapda). He was charge-sheeted for ante- dating thirteen applications in the Service Connection Register in order to give an undue priority to the said applications and for deliberately accepting incorrect addresses of the applicants, that is, instead of village Dhoke Sher Alam the village Lulyani. The Enquiry Officer after providing full opportunity to the petitioner recorded his finding in the affirmative as to the charge. Upon receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner by the above order dated 6-5-1987. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal on 30-8-1987, which was beyond the prescribed time of limitation of 60 days. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Tribunal after the expiry of the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the above petition for leave.
3. Raja Mohammad Akram, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, was unable to point out as to how the Tribunal's impugned judgment is violative of any provision of law or the statutory rules.
Admittedly the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time. Even on merits the factum that the petitioner had deliberately ante-dated the above thirteen applications and deliberately accepted the incorrect addresses with the motive to provide benefit of the electric connections to the applicants which they were not entitled to, stand proved. There is concurrent finding on the above question of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Tribunal. The petition has no merits and leave is accordingly refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAUZIA SIDDIQUE QURESHI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD 2004 PLC(CS) 781
- GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE 2004 PLC(CS) 755