MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a decision of the Service Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the findings of the Tribunal, which had upheld disciplinary action against him based on his own admission of receiving an unauthorized sum of Rs. 200 from a complainant. The Supreme Court first addressed a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period, noting that while the petition appeared barred by 142 days, the Tribunal's own narration of facts indicated the petition was within time. On the merits, the Court found that the petitioner had admitted to realizing money without legal authority or official duty. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law of public importance arose that would warrant further examination or the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed, affirming that an admission of misconduct by a public servant regarding unauthorized financial transactions precludes the necessity for further judicial review by the Supreme Court.
- Does an admission of misconduct by a public servant regarding unauthorized financial transactions raise a question of law of public importance?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be considered within limitation if the Tribunal's own narration of facts contradicts the calculation of delay?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---This Petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is shown to be barred by 142 days. However, the judgment of the Tribunal itself by narration of the facts in para. 4 makes the petition within limitation.
2. The finding of the Service Tribunal on merits is based on an admission of the petitioner himself that he received from one of the applicants/complainants a sum of Rs.200 which he had no authority under the law or in the discharge of his duties to realise.
3. In view of such an admission no question of law of public importance arises which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.