2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19‑4‑2003 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by means of order dated 14‑2‑2001 which has been altered to that of reduction in pay in three stages vide judgments impugned, hence this petition.

2. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of Govt. of Punjab and urged with vehemence that major penalty of removal from service could not have been altered to that of reduction in pay in three stages without any lawful justification which is lacking. It is also contended that the gravity of situation was ignored by the learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

3. We have carefully examined the contentions and perused the judgment impugned. A careful scrutiny of the record would reveal that no specific charge could be levelled against the respondent. No evidence worth the name could be collected that how the alleged assistance was rendered and to whom? No material rendering any help to the students including the daughter of the petitioner could be recovered. There is no specific charge of cheating or copying against any particular student. Neither any answer sheet was taken by the examiner/invigilator nor any action was initiated against any student for cheating or copying. No evidence has come on record showing that some undue interference was made by the respondent and what kind of interference it was? Viewed in this context a regular inquiry should have been conducted to unveil the reality. The major penalty of removal from service should have not been imposed being too harsh in view of the nature of allegations, which could not be substantiated by adducing any cogent or concrete evidence. The learned Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the contentions as agitated before this Court in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced for ready reference:‑‑ "I have considered the arguments from both sides and also gone through the relevant record as produced. The fact is manifest that while the charges ore really not specific but the same are serious. It is also evidence that no enquiry was held under E&D Rules in order to provide the appellant adequate opportunity to defend her case. No doubt, the department was within its legal powers to dispense with the enquiry, but the nature of charges warranted that a regular enquiry should have been instituted. At the same time, the extreme penalty of removal from service is also not considered commensurate with the quantum of guilt even if clearly established. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeal is partly accepted and the punishment of removal from service is converted into that of reduction in pay by three stages. Resultantly, the impugned orders shall stand modified to that extent. The appellant shall stand reinstated and the period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due."

4. No question of law of public importance is involved persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The judgment impugned being well based and free from any illegality does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./G‑3/SC Petition dismissed.