2007 PLP 1504 (SCMR)
ATHAR SAEED ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1504 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | ATHAR SAEED ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1504 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1504 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1504 (SCMR) (ATHAR SAEED ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 13-7-2001 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2613 of 2000).
Rr. 4(l)(b)(v) & 7
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioner was dismissed from service after charge-sheeting and holding inquiry against him on certain allegations
Inquiry against petitioner was conducted by a Magistrate in conformity with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and petitioner was found guilty of charges after affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing and defence
Petitioner was dismissed from service by competent Authority
Service Tribunal also took pains to re-examine case of petitioner on merits, but dismissed his appeal
Findings of fact concurrently recorded by Departmental Authorities as well as the Service Tribunal, need not be substituted by Supreme Court without their being any exceptional circumstances
Impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court
Petition for leave to appeal not involving any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Art.212(3) of the Constitution, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 13-7-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2613 of 2000.
2. The petitioner was posted as Junior Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. A charge-sheet was issued against him along with the statement of allegations. He submitted his reply thereto. A Magistrate was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who held the inquiry and found the petitioner guilty of preparing bogus allotment order in the name of one Khurshid Ahmed under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. A mutation was also entered in the Revenue Record on the basis of the allotment order which was, however, cancelled subsequently. On receipt of the inquiry report, the competent authority afforded him opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, by order dated 14-4-2000, dismissed him from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1999. After availing the departmental remedies, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal No.2613 of 2000 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13-7-2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that at the relevant time the petitioner was no more posted to the seat dealing with the allotment of land from where he had already been transferred. It was further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority was not supposed to call for the complainant and to record his statement against the petitioner. It was next submitted that the bogus allotment order in question did not bear his signature nor the same was in his handwriting. Even the number of the so-called allotment order was not written. The Departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal misdirected themselves in coming to the conclusions based on conjectures and surmises.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the available record. We find that the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted by a Magistrate in conformity with the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and defence. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the competent authority. The Tribunal also took pains to re-examine the case of the petitioner on merits but dismissed his appeal. The findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Departmental Authorities as well as by the Tribunal need not be substituted by this Court, without their being any exceptional circumstances. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of pubic importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./A-189/SC Petition dismissed.