Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SARWAR SAEED Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPH
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld his dismissal from service for misconduct. The charges related to the acquisition of property and an insurance policy without departmental permission and failing to disclose them in his Annual Statement of Assets. The petitioner's defence was that he was merely a benamidar and not the actual owner of the properties. The Supreme Court considered whether a civil servant is required to declare assets held in his name even if he claims to be a benamidar, and whether failure to obtain permission and make such declarations constitutes misconduct. The Court held that assets in an employee's name must be declared, and if claimed to be held benami, explanatory facts must be provided. Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusions and no question of law of public importance, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that failure to disclose assets standing in one's name in annual declarations or to seek prior permission, regardless of a benami plea, constitutes misconduct justifying dismissal.
- Whether a civil servant is obliged to disclose assets held in his name in the Annual Statement of Assets even if he claims to be a benamidar?
- Does the failure to obtain departmental permission for investing money in property and insurance policies constitute misconduct?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's judgment raises a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal by its judgment dated 19-6-1990.
2.The petitioner was proceeded against on certain charges which related to his investment of money in property and insurance policy without the permission of the Department and without disclosing the same in the Annual Statement of Assets. The plea of the petitioner in defence was that he had not acquired the properties from his own resources, that he was a mere Benamidar and being not the owner, was not obliged to seek permission or to declare it as his own property. The Department held an enquiry and punished him with dismissal from service. He challenged the same before the Service Tribunal but failed.
3.A number of grounds have been taken up in the Memorandum of Petition for leave to appeal with regard to the improper conduct of the enquiry, not making available the record for proper defence and the bias of the enquiry officer. As regards the merits of the case, the petitioner advanced the same plea which was taken note of by the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal.
4.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and agree with the conclusion drawn by the Federal Service Tribunal as hereunder:-
"Whatever assets existed in the appellant's name were expected to be mentioned in the declaration of assets. If the appellant was "Benamidar", it was all the more necessary that he should have not only mentioned it but should have particularly added the explanatory facts. The mere fact that the appellant chose not to disclose this asset in the declaration of assets, clearly speaks for itself. For these reasons the Enquiry Officer's finding that the appellant was guilty of misconduct is also upheld.
5.Factually, the learned counsel cannot explain his omission to declare these assets and also the explanation given by him is wholly unsatisfactory. The authorities were justified in coming to the conclusion to which they did.
6.No question of law of public importance arises in the case to justify leave to appeal which is hereby refused.
Judges on this bench
- Nasim Hasan Shah3,148 judgments
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments