Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KARAMAT HUSSAIN VS Respondent: WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Saleem Akhter, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title:KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and
another Case No.: Civil Petition No, 993/L of 1993 Appeal No, 195(L)/93 Date of Judgment:1994-05-11 Reported As: 1996 SCMR 461 Result: Leave granted Judgment ORDER ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-4-1993. 2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for corruption. An inquiry was conducted against him, and he was found guilty of the charge. He was reduced to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (B-16) for a period of three years. His appeal has been dismissed by the Service Tribunal. The learned Service Tribunal has based his judgment on the report of the Inquiry Officer and then observed as under:-- "The appellant was furnished copy of inquiry report and no prejudice has been alleged or caused to him. He was also given personal hearing. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the second charge against the appellant has rightly been proved, and the impugned order of his reduction to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer for a period of three years is rather a lenient view taken by the respondents, otherwise in cases of corruption, dismissal from service would have been the appropriate punishment. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with costs." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts of the case; that the report of the Inquiry Officer, that P.W. Muhammad Hayat Yaqoob and P.W. Sarfraz Khan are independent witnesses, is not correct, as both these witnesses were also' contractors and directly interested in leveling allegations against the petitioner. There is no direct evidence of receiving bribe from the contractor, and there is no allegation that the petitioner is reported tube corrupt. .