IKRAMULLAH vs CITY SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICES, PESHAWAR And Another
The petitioner, an officiating clerk in the Post Office, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of misconduct, misbehavior, and unauthorized absence. An inquiry officer was appointed, and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to defend himself before the City Superintendent of Post Offices ordered his dismissal. Upon departmental appeal, the Deputy Post Master-General modified the penalty to removal from service. The petitioner subsequently challenged this decision before the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural infirmity or legal defect in the departmental inquiry process. The Supreme Court observed that the established allegations against the petitioner were serious and that the punishment imposed was, if anything, lenient. Consequently, the Court found the petition to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, affirming the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the competent authorities.
- Can a disciplinary dismissal be challenged if the departmental inquiry process was conducted properly?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to identify any infirmity in the departmental proceedings?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was serving as officiating clerk in the office of the Post Master, Peshawar City. There were allegations of misconduct, misbehavior and unauthorised absence from duty against him. He was served with a charge-sheet and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after giving a further opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself the City Superintendent of Post Offices dismissed him for service.
He preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Post Master-General. The appeal partly succeeded inasmuch as the punishment awarded to him was reduced to removal from service. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The petitioner has been removed from service after a proper inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the departmental proceedings taken against him suffered from any infirmity: Considering the allegations that stand established against him he seems to have been lightly treated in the matter of punishment. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.