1990 PLP 812 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 29‑12‑1985 (corrected on 15‑1‑1986) whereby his appeal against an order of dismissal from service, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was posted as a Senior Clerk in Soil Fertility Survey and Soil Testing Institute when he was proceeded against the charges pertaining to forgery in the documents with a view to derive benefit in service. The Authorised officer communicated the charges but could not elicit the participation of the petitioner in the inquiry that followed. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of personal hearing afforded to him by the Authority and the Appellate Authority and instead challenged the order of his removal before the Service Tribunal for the second time. The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal with slight modifications in the dates by observing as hereunder:‑‑ "Hence we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order except with the modification that the dismissal of the appellant would be treated with effect from 12‑2‑1985 when the impugned order was issued by the Authority and not with effect from 1‑5‑1985. With this modification the appeal is dismissed." On an application moved by the petitioner the Tribunal corrected the clerical mistake in its order in the following words:‑‑ "In case of Bashir Ahmad Salik, the petitioner has moved an application to correct the clerical mistake in the judgment dated 29‑12‑1985. According to the petitioner in the last line wherein it has been mentioned "that the dismissal of the appellant would be treated w.e.f. 12‑2‑1985 when the impugned order was issued by the Authority and not w.e.f. 1‑5‑1985". It has been submitted that actually the date should have been 1‑5‑1980 and thus inadvertently the clerical mistake has crept into this judgment. We have seen the judgment and find that the contention of the petitioner is correct. The date w.e.f. 1‑5‑1985 is substituted to read as 1‑5‑1980."

3. Mr. Abdur Rashid Momin, Advocate High Court was permitted by us on the request of the petitioner to address arguments as he had represented the petitioner's case before the Tribunal as well. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case the authorised officer was himself appointed the Inquiry Officer and the appellate authority made the appointment and not the authority competent to deal with the petitioner. When asked to explain as to how these factual submissions were not raised before and during the course of the inquiry which was ex parte against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has no satisfactory explanation.

4. The charges levelled against the petitioner had twice been looked into and the technical defects earlier pointed out were taken care of in the first order of the Service Tribunal by which the proceedings were remanded. The petitioner should have raised these factual objections during the course of the inquiry in order that the department's clear view on the subject may have been available and also a determinative finding. Going through the comments of the department we find that the service of the charge‑sheet by the authorised officer on the petitioner and on his refusal to participate in the inquiry to submit an ex parte report on the matter was well within his competence. The authority had afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and so had appellate authority but the petitioner did not avail of it and in this manner the order of his dismissal from service was affirmed. The retrospectively in the order of dismissal from service has been taken care of by the Service Tribunal which has altered the date to make it prospective.

5. The petition does not raise any question of law of public importance to merit further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. H.B.T./B‑144/S Leave refused.