Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT ALI VS Respondent: SECRETARY FINANCEHonorable Justice SHAFIUR RAHMANMian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record,Nemo
1991 S C M R 1491
1991 S C M R 1491
Present: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ
SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE SECRETARY, FINANCE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 43‑R of 1990, decided on 19th February, 2 " 1990.
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 29‑11‑1989 passed in Appeal No. 368(R) of 1989).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Civil servant was charged to have facilitated sale of a forged prize bond by assuring that same were genuine‑‑‑Civil servant's service appeal was. dismissed‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Enquiry revealed that when civil servant had made representation with regard to genuineness of bond he had definite knowledge of its being forged‑‑‑Civil servant's such conduct could seriously obstruct efficient and honest functioning of a department which dealt with financial matters of Government‑‑‑Service Tribunal having recorded a correct finding of fact, there was no question of law which required further examination by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th February, 1990.
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner, formerly a Deputy Savings Officer at National Savings Centre, Sillanwali, District Sargodha, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 29‑11‑1989 whereby his service appeal against the punishment of dismissal from service was itself dismissed.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that while posted at the Savings Centre, he had facilitated the sale of a forged fifty rupees prize bond by assuring that it was genuine and had earned a prize which could be obtained in lieu of it. He was also charged with making incorrect and false statements during an enquiry and of making wrong entries in the attendance register. An enquiry was held into his conduct and he was found guilty on the charges and dismissed from service. The finding of fact with regard to guilt or otherwise of the petitioner was endorsed by the Service Tribunal by observing as hereunder:‑
"It does not appear that any inquiry was made from the original prize bond holder, namely Ghulam Abbas, but the statements of other witnesses do indicate that the appellant has had hand in the fraudulent deal of purchase of the prize bond. He did admit in his reply to the show cause notice that Ghulam Abbas had contacted him and he had told him that the bond was a genuine document. He was an officer at the centre and if his hands were clean, he would have exposed the mischief doers and reported the matter to the concerned authorities. He was thus guilty of misconduct. As regards the third charge, he also admitted that he had made overwritings in the muster roll in respect of attendance of Muhammad Hanif who too was involved in the affair. Even this charge was of incriminating circumstance against him. Of course, the inquiry officer's report is not a balanced document, but the facts discussed above, do prove misconduct of the appellant by his involvement in the fraudulent deal in respect of aforesaid prize bond.
3. Mr. Saeed-ur‑Rahman Farrukh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn much support for his arguments from the manner in which the enquiry report has been drawn up and the inconsistencies detected by him therein. Additionally it was contended that the admissions attributed to the petitioner are not on record.
4. In his first reply to the charges, the petitioner on facts had made an admission in the following words:
"The bond apparently looked to be genuine and lucky, therefore, on inquest of Islamuddin I told him the apparent genuineness of the document. I am not an expert of writing, and therefore there was no ill motive or evil design in such doings on my part for which I have already heavily been punished."
5. The enquiry revealed that when he made this representation with regard to the genuineness of the bond, he had the definite knowledge of its being forged. As an Officer‑in‑charge of the Savings Centre, this was a conduct which could seriously obstruct efficient and honest functioning of a department which deals with financial matters of the Government. The Tribunal having recorded a correct finding of fact, we find that no question of law arises which may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
AA./S‑513/S Leave refused.