PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through its CHAIRMAN and three others vs M_s. MUHAMMAD SAEED WAZIR, FORMER GENERAL MANAGER, (T&R) PTCL and another

Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.--Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through its Chairman and other functionaries seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, against the judgment dated 9.4.2003 of the learned Federal Seryice Tribunal, Islamabad whereby, on acceptance of the appeal of Muhammad Saeed Wazir former General Manager (T&R) PTCL, the order dated 20.10.2000 of his dismissal from service, was set aside leaving open for the department to pass any order in accordance with law.

2. Relevant facts are to the effect that the respondent remained under investigation by National Accountability Bureau where he entered into a plea bargain on 25.7.2000. On 7.9.2000, a letter was issued from Chief Executive Secretariat National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad to the Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad to take follow up action provided under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 under intimation to the Bureau. Thereafter, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent through the impugned order dated 20.10.2000.

3. Learned Tribunal was of the view that on the day of dismissal from service i.e. 20.10.2000, the respondent could not have been removed under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline)

Rules, 1973 because by then Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already been promulgated with effect from 20.5.2000/27.5.2000 and that Section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance excluded the application of any other law.

4. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that under Section 3(1)(c)(iv) added by Ordinance V of 2001, the dismissal could be ordered because of respondent having entered into a plea bargain with NAB authorities.

5. We are afraid this argument would not hold the ground because the insertion of sub-clause (c)

(iv) in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Ordinance merely makes an addition to the grounds for action from (a) to (e) and does not authorize the competent authority to pass any order without enquiry. The closing paragraph of Section 3 sub-section (1) clearly lays down that if conditions given under sub-clause (a) to (e) are available, the competent authority, after inquiry by the inquiry officer or the inquiry committee appointed under Section 5, may dismiss or remove the civil servant from service or take any other action alluded to in the aforementioned para.

6. We are convinced that the issuance of show-cause notice and the holding of inquiry, in the given circumstances was necessary under Section 3 of. Removal from Service (Special Powers)

Ordinance 2000. In the instant case, neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held and thus, Tribunal has rightly set aside the impugned order of dismissal. Regardless of whether the proceedings are taken under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 or under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, a dismissal without notice and without inquiry could not be ordered in the circumstances of the present case. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.