ABID HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, NESCOM, ISLAMABAD and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the removal of the petitioner, a former Technical Helper at the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), following allegations of attempted rape. The petitioner challenged his removal, arguing that the competent authority lacked the jurisdiction to enhance the punishment recommended by the Inquiry Officer and that he was denied a fair hearing because no show-cause notice was issued regarding the disagreement with the inquiry report. The Supreme Court addressed whether the competent authority possesses the power to deviate from an Inquiry Officer's recommended penalty and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Court held that the competent authority retains the jurisdiction to disagree with an Inquiry Officer, particularly concerning the quantum of punishment. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner was not condemned unheard, as the show-cause notice explicitly warned that dismissal from service was a potential penalty. Emphasizing that charges involving moral turpitude in sensitive institutions warrant serious disciplinary action, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the removal from service.
- Does a competent authority have the jurisdiction to disagree with the penalty recommended by an Inquiry Officer?
- Is a separate show-cause notice required when a competent authority decides to impose a harsher penalty than that recommended by an Inquiry Officer?
- Does a charge of moral turpitude in a sensitive institution justify a more severe disciplinary approach?
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Abid Hussain, a former Technical Helper, Project Management Organization (P.M.O.) National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), having been removed from service vide order, dated 27-5-2004 of the competent authority and the same having been maintained by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad vide judgment dated 16-2-2008, seeks leave to appeal therefrom.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 9-7-2003, in P.M.O. Colony, he attempted to rape Mrs. Surila, wife of Nazakat Khan, who had visited Medical Centre to meet Senior Nurse, Aziz-un- Nisa, after having learnt that the latter required a maid servant. The above charge is fully proved during regular inquiry conducted by the Committee. He had fully been associated with the proceedings; the witnesses were examined in his presence; he cross-examined them according to his choice; was given show-cause notice and above all, he had confessed his guilt in writing. The charge is proved and hence the action taken against him cannot be taken an exception to.
3. The Inquiry Officer had recommended the stoppage of promotion of a period of 14 years, but the competent authority, not agreeing with the quantum of punishment, ordered the removal from service. Learned counsel challenged this conduct, believing, that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to disagree with the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. We do not agree with the argument because the competent authority has every jurisdiction and power to disagree with the Inquiry officer, especially on the quantum of punishment.
4. The authority 2008 SCM R 1174 relied upon by the learned counsel has rightly been distinguished by the learned Tribunal, observing that in the aforementioned ruling, the official was charged of inefficiency and misconduct, while in case in hand, the charge relates to the moral turpitude, which, in a sensitive institution like that of respondent, must be seriously dealt with.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the action of the competent authority, that before disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In this connection, we would look into the show-cause notice dated 10-3-2004 (P.39), the contents whereof would clearly suggest that it was served after the submission of inquiry report and it was clarified to the petitioner that the punishment involved could include dismissal from service. The petitioner, therefore, was not condemned unheard.
6. Consequently, we see no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.