IFTIKHAR AHMED MALIK vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty from dismissal from service to removal from service following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The petitioner, an Assistant Director in the Geological Survey of Pakistan, was charged with unauthorized employment with a foreign company, obtaining a passport without proper authorization, and traveling abroad without permission. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal's concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's misconduct warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the allegations were substantiated by cogent evidence, including the petitioner's unauthorized dual employment and simultaneous receipt of salary from both the government and the private company. Affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that it does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal absent a substantial question of law of public importance. The petition was dismissed, as the Court found no justification to deviate from established practice regarding factual findings or to grant further leniency given the petitioner's conduct.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by a departmental authority and the Service Tribunal?
- Is a substantial question of law of public importance required for the grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a civil servant be penalized for unauthorized employment with a private company while simultaneously drawing a government salary?
- Rule 16, Government Conduct Rules 1964
- Rule 15(1), Revised Leave Rules 1980
- Rule 37, Revised Leave Rules 1980
- Section 5(1), Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' JAVED IQBAL, J---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-9- 2002 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 12-10-1998 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct has been modified to that of removal from service.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that the petitioner "was an employee of Geological Survey of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as GSP) and was posted as Assistant Director in its Azad Kashmir Directorate. It transpired in 1996 that the appellant had unauthorisedly taken employment with a foreign Company namely M/s. Sperry- Sun Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), secured a passport and travelled abroad in connection with the work of the Company. Charge-sheet dated 15-5-1997 was served on the appellant and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations given below:-- "(i) He remained unauthorisedly employed with M/s. Sperry-Sun Drilling Services w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and earned $ 31,395 and Rs.11,61,615 and thus violated rule 16 of the Government Conduct Rules, 1964 which tantamounts to the misconduct.
(ii) He arranged to get Passport No.G-77463, without permission of the competent authority and thus being Government servant violated the rules of Passport and Visa Manual, 1974.
(iii) He frequently travelled abroad without permission of the Competent Authority and thus violated rule 15(1), 37 of the revised Leave Rules, 1980."
' The appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet as under:-- ' For the permission to work with Sperry-Sun I submitted proper applications to the Director (photocopies enclosed) the first application was submitted on 18-12-1991 and the other on 1-1-1992 so this was the only effort I could make on my part. I undertook the job of Sperry-Sun exclusively in my own time (during my leave period on half pay).
(ii) To keep the private passport a proper N.O.C. Was obtained from the department (photocopy enclosed).
(iii) I got my ex-Pakistan Leave already sanctioned by the competent authority."
3. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty by concluding as follows:- "(i) Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Malik, Asstt. Director GSP., Muzaffarabad managed to get a Passport No.G- 774763 by concealing his exact position in GSP and the Government and travelled abroad without proper permission and lawful authority.
(ii) He remained unauthorisedly employed by M/s. Sperry-Sun Drilling Services from 1-1-1992 to 1-2- 1996.
(iii) During the period from 1-1-1992 to 1-2-1996 he earned Rs.1,522,215 (in local currency and US$ 31,395 (in foreign' exchange) from M/s. Sperry-Sun Drilling Services and also continued to draw his salary from GSP as well.
(iv) He did not deposit any money with the Government as per rules applicable in similar but lawful cases of employment abroad."
4. The Competent Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by means of order dated 12-10-1998. Being aggrieved the petitioner made representation to his department which remained unresponded. The petitioner approached learned Federal Service Tribunal by means of Appeal bearing No.205(P)/99 which has been dismissed, however, the penalty of dismissal from service has been converted to that of removal from service.
5. Heard Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Ms. Naheeda Mahboob Elahi, learned Deputy Attorney General for the respondents, scanned the entire record and perused the judgment impugned. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that the allegations levelled against the A petitioner have been substantiated by cogent and concrete evidence. A comprehensive inquiry was conducted and proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is .To be noted that "this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings of fact given by B Departmental Authority and Service Tribunal."
Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA 1991 SCM R 383, Faiz Ahmad v. Deputy Postmaster General, Lahore 1991 SCM R 368, Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. WAPDA 1990 SCM R 907, Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal 1990 SCM R 1005). There is no justification whatsoever to deviate from the said well- entrenched practice. It is an admitted feature of the case that petitioner had managed to procure the passport in his "private capacity" which could not have been done as admittedly he was a Government servant. No "NOC" could have been issued to any Government servant to procure a passport in his "private capacity" which amounts to fraud and dishonest distortion of facts. No rule could be pointed out by Hafiz S.A. Rahman, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner to justify such an illegal action. It is worth-mentioning that petitioner had received salary simultaneously from the department and the company which he joined at his own. The requisite deduction was never got made deliberately. Hafiz S.A. Rahman, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court C on behalf of petitioner conceded candidly that it should have been done. It has also come on record that the appellant had executed an agreement for employment with the company without having sanctioned of Ex-Pakistan Leave of 364 days. The official record is further indicative of the fact that Notification dated 21-12-1995 made it abundant clear that petitioner availed 230 days leave w.e.f. 4-5-1992 to 4-12-1993 piecemeal without having the proper permission from the Competent Authority. The petitioner never approached his department with clean hands and the reality was unveiled by the Company when the petitioner represented against his termination from the Company and resultantly the matter was brought to the notice of department by whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated which culminated into dismissal from service. The learned Federal Service Tribunal has dilated upon and decided all the contentions agitated before this Court vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "11. In the light of the above rules and instructions and in the face of facts discussed hereinabove there is no doubt that the appellant misconducted himself as a civil servant by taking up employment with the Company without permission of the competent authority. The respondents have, however, stated in their objections that in view of the written admission before the Inquiry Officer and the authorized officer, the latter had recommended penalty of removal from service but the competent authority enhanced it to dismissal. In view of this and the fact that the appellant is a professional and still young we feel that in the circumstances of this case, the penalty of removal from service proposed by the Authorised Officer was reasonable and sufficient. Therefore, under section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the impugned order is modified and the penalty of dismissal is converted into removal from service."
6. No question of law of public importance is involved which is since qua non under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution for grant of D leave. It is well-settled by now that "where no substantial question of law, muchless question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, a finding of Service Tribunal being a finding of fact would not E call for any interference by Supreme Court."
(Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation 1991 SCM R 255). Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, no further leniency is called for. The judgment impugned F being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being merit-less is dismissed and .