2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29‑6‑2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 5‑1‑2000 passed by the Competent Authority whereby the major penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner has been kept intact.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as vaccinator on 30‑9‑1984 and subsequently he was appointed as dispenser on 15‑3‑1993 after completion of one year's course during 1990‑

91. Pursuant to complaint made against the petitioner that he had produced a fake and bogus certificate of matriculation enabling him eligible to take admission in the dispensers' course a show cause notice dated 13‑10‑1989 was issued under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and after completion of mandatory formalities major penalty of removal from service was imposed by means of order dated 5‑1‑2000. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Director Health Services, Lahore Division, Lahore which was rejected on 28‑3‑2000. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.

3. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended that no regular inquiry was conducted to unveil the realty which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It is urged emphatically that the law as laid down in Millat Tractors Limited v. Punjab Labour Court No.3 (1996 SCMR 883) has been ignored by, learned Service Tribunal for the reasons best known to it. It is urged with vehemence that the petitioner could not have been removed from the post of vaccinator against which he was appointed on the basis of genuine matriculation certificate veracity whereof was never challenged.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant record of the case. We have gone through the judgment impugned with care and caution. After having scrutinized the entire record with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court we are not persuaded to agree with him that regular inquiry must have been held for the simple reason that it could have been dispensed with under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. In our view regular inquiry should be held where the controversial facts or ticklish questions are involved which cannot be resolved without having recourse to a regular inquiry which at all are not involved in the matter. Whether fraud has been committed or not being a question of fact has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner after having taken into consideration the report of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore by the Service Tribunal in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein‑below for ready reference:‑‑ "

2. Arguments were heard and the record was perused. It is crystal clear from the documented record that the appellant had produced two Matriculation Certificates as issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan according to which he had passed the Matriculation in Science subjects from' the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and this fact is as clear and obvious as the daylight. The concerned authorities in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore have declared the certificate used by the appellant for enrolment in the dispensers' course and subsequent appointment as dispenser as fake. In this presence of this solid ; documentary evidence, the procedure of regular enquiry had; been justifiably dispensed with by the Departmental Authority. But at the same time, the appellant had been given full opportunity to defend himself. to prove that the certificate used by him for enrolment/appointment as Dispenser was not fake. He failed to do so and was accordingly removed from service by the Departmental Authority after following the prescribed procedure under the rules."

5. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal, being well based hardly warrants any interference The law laid down in Millat Tractors (supra) relied upon heavily by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner could not be made applicable being distinguishable to this case. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. S.A.K./Z‑6/SC Petition dismissed