Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Respondent: MANAGER, FINANCE (WATER), WAPDA
1988 S C M R 1855
1988 S C M R 1855
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner versus
MANAGER, FINANCE (WATER)WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No. 112‑R of 1987, decided on 5th July, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 15th March, 1987 in Appeal No.331(R) of 1986).
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Appeal to Service Tribunal failed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Pleas raised that Tribunal after noting arguments neither accepted nor rejected the submissions; proceedings shifted from one officer to the other to the prejudice of petitioner, due procedure was not observed during enquiry and the charge was not established against petitioner‑ Full application of mind to arguments given contemporaneously when they were being noted in impugned judgment, and no prejudice having been caused to petitioner, substantial justice was done and proceedings not vitiated‑‑Questions of merits regarding proof of charge were not such as to justify interference by Supreme Court‑‑No question of law of public importance being involved, leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th July, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a WAPDA employee, who stands dismissed from service, against the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal.
Learned counsel contended that: (i) the Tribunal after noting the arguments neither accepted nor rejected the submissions; (ii) that the proceedings shifted from an officer to the other to the prejudice of the petitioner; (iii) that due procedure was not observed during the enquiry; (iv) and that the charge including the temporary embezzlement, is not established against the petitioner.
There is no force in any of the submissions. Though the Tribunal applied mind to the arguments addressed from both sides, yet the treatment thereof is unorthodox. The judgment could have been more elaborate. However, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
There was full application of mind to the arguments contemporaneously, when they were being noted in the impugned judgment. Substantial justice has been done.
The so‑called defects of procedure pointed out by the learned counsel either in the hearing offended to him by different persons including the appellate forum or during the enquiry which it seems was fair, do not vitiate the proceedings. The questions of the merit regarding proof of the charge, are not such so as to justify interference by this Court. As no question of law of public importance is involved, leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M.I./A‑286/S Petition dismissed.