Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAQBOOL AHMAD VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Saad Saood Jan Title: MAQBOOL AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and another Case No.: Civil Petition No,10 of 1981 Date of Judgment:1988-07-06 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1476 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as sub-accountant in the Tehsil office at Okara. After a regular departmental inquiry on the allegations of defalcation and gross irregularities, he was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, Multan Division. He preferred a departmental appeal which was partly accepted by the Secretary in the Finance Department inasmuch as the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to removal from service. He then filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. ' In support of this petition it is urged that there was no evidence of defalcation against the petitioner and as such the penalty imposed on him was entirely uncalled for. It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal examined the entire record and found: ' We feel that the appellant's admission that he deposited the money in the wrong head of account and that he made the payments to Shamshad Ali and Abdul Qayyum, is sufficient to warrant the disciplinary action taken against him. Moreover, the fact that the powers of attorney were not to be found and that there was no mention about their existence in the relevant record, lends credence to the allegation that the appellants's actions were not above board. That he acted without authority is established beyond doubt. If there was any extenuating circumstance its benefit has already accrued to him in the form of modification of the punishment from dismissal to removal from service by respondent No,2" ' In view of the above findings of the learned Tribunal, no case for interference by this Court has been made out. The petition is dismissed.