Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 878 of 1982, decided on 29th January, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 26th July, 1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No. 135 of 1982).

‑‑Art. 21‑(3)‑Punjab Services Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4 Civil service‑Dismissal from service‑No question of law of any public importance raised in support of petition‑Leave to appeal refused.

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984.

This petition is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed on 26‑7‑1982, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in liming.

The petitioner was a junior clerk in the office of the Assistant Colonazation Officer, Jauharabad and was dismissed from service on the allegation that he issued an order dated 26‑10‑1977 with respect of allotment of land to certain persons under the forged signatures of the Extra‑Commissioner Colonization, Jauharabad. This allegation was proved in a departmental inquiry and his appeal and revision filed against the order of dismissal having failed, the petitioner moved the Service Tribunal by way of an appeal.

The learned Tribunal examined the entire matter with care and attention, as is evidence from the following extract of the order dated 26‑7‑1982:‑

"The Enquiry Officer examined 9 P. Ws. as well the appellant who declined to produce any deference. The three P. Ws. namely, Mr. Wajahat Hussain (P.W.5), Mian Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) and Mr. Muhammad Javid Gill (P.W. 8) who were all gazetted officers appeared before the Enquiry Officer and denied about their signatures on the said allotment orders. The only plea extended by the appellant in this case before the Enquiry Officer as well as before us is that he did not forge their signature and to establish the said charge a handwriting expert should be examined. We have for this purpose compared ourselves the signatures of the appellant with the signature so found on the letters and are satisfied with naked eyes examination that there is strong similarity between the two. However, the appellant has been the custodian of the record, irresistible conclusion would be that this forgery must be committed with his connivance. We have further perused the lengthy enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dated 1‑2‑1‑‑81 and are satisfied that lot of pains were taken by the said Enquiry Officer to sift the defence so produced before him with regard to the charges levelled against the appellant.

In view of the detailed enquiry report and two concurrent judgments of the learned Deputy Commissioner, and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, which for all purposes are detailed decision taking into consideration all pros and cons of the case, we do not find any reason to admit this case for regular hearing."

Sh. Masud Akhtar seeks to challenge the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal by this petition for leave to appeal. However, no question of law of any public importance has been raised in support of this petition for leave to appeal, which is, therefore, hereby dismissed.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.