KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-4-1993, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his penalty of reduction to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer for three years following an inquiry that found him guilty of corruption. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and applied its mind in upholding the disciplinary action. The Supreme Court considered the petitioner's contentions that the inquiry witnesses were interested parties and that direct evidence of receiving a bribe was lacking. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Service Tribunal rightly relied on the inquiry report where the petitioner was furnished a copy of the report, suffered no prejudice, and was afforded a personal hearing. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by a service tribunal based on proper inquiry proceedings and observance of natural justice will not be interfered with lightly by the apex court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal based on an inquiry report?
- Is a public servant entitled to a copy of the inquiry report and a personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether the penalty of reduction in rank for corruption is warranted under service laws?
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-4-1993.
2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for corruption. An inquiry was conducted against him, and he was found guilty of the charge. He was reduced to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (B-16) for a period of three years. His appeal has been dismissed by the Service Tribunal.
The learned Service Tribunal has based his judgment on the report of the Inquiry Officer and then observed as under:-- "The appellant was furnished copy of inquiry report and no prejudice has been alleged or caused to him. He was also given personal hearing. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the second charge against the appellant has rightly been proved, and the impugned order of his reduction to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer for a period of three years is rather a lenient view taken by the respondents, otherwise in cases of corruption, dismissal from service would have been the appropriate punishment. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with costs."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts of the case; that the report of the Inquiry Officer, that P.W. Muhammad Hayat Yaqoob and P.W. Sarfraz Khan are independent witnesses, is not correct, as both these witnesses were also' contractors and directly interested in leveling allegations against the petitioner. There is no direct evidence of receiving bribe from the contractor, and there is no allegation that the petitioner is reported tube corrupt. .