Find a Lawyer

Case No. 538 of 1985, decided on 27th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Charge of fabrication of record and preparing fictitious letter‑‑Accused confessing charge in statement on oath before two different Officers but later resiling‑‑Two concurrent findings of facts against accused by punishing and appellate authorities‑‑Accused, in circumstances, held, cannot be allowed to resile from his confession and take shelter behind his own statement‑‑Tribunal declining to interfere.

Mian Muhammad Saeed for Appellant.

Abdur Rehman has filed this appeal under section 4 of 'the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 14‑12‑1983, 15‑1‑1984 and 17‑6‑1985, be set aside and he be re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that vide Letter No. 860, dated 22‑1‑1983, the additional post of Special Honorary Magistrate was not demanded. The appellant destroyed the original letter, dated 11‑1‑1983 and fabricated a fictitious commendation on behalf of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division for appointment of Syed Muhammad Ali Shah, as Special Honorary Magistrate, and sent the same to the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore. He was proceeded in this matter by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar on 23‑4‑1983 on oath. His another statement was recorded by A.D.I.‑G. on 4‑7‑1983 and ultimately it was found that he was guilty of the charges. The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, vide his order, dated 14‑12‑1983, dismissed him from service. He filed appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue, who after taking into consideration of all pros and cons, dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 17‑6‑1983.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as has perused the comments so filed by the respondents and have taken into consideration the entire record which was made available by the representative of the Department.

5. The fact of the matter is that the appellant made a statement on oath on 23‑4‑1983 and gave a detailed statement on 4‑7‑1983 on two different dates although later on he resiled from the same. Once the appellant has himself confessed his guilt before two different officers one by a Judicial Officer and second by A.D.I.‑G. Police, he cannot be allowed to resile from the same and take shelter behind his own statement to support his case. Moreover, there are two concurrent findings of facts against him by learned Member, Board of Revenue and Commissioner, and I do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Appeal 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.