PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Chairman and 3 others vs Messrs MUHAMMAD SAEED WAZIR, former General-Manager, (T&R) PTCL and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent, a former General Manager. The respondent had been dismissed following a plea bargain with the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal question was whether the respondent could be dismissed from service without a show-cause notice or an inquiry, specifically under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that even if the respondent entered into a plea bargain, the competent authority was still required to follow the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed by law. The Court affirmed that the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, requires the competent authority to conduct an inquiry by an Inquiry Officer or Committee before imposing penalties like dismissal. The key principle laid down is that the statutory requirement for an inquiry and the issuance of a show-cause notice is mandatory, and a dismissal order passed without adhering to these procedural requirements is legally void.
- Can a civil servant be dismissed from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 without a show-cause notice or an inquiry?
- Does entering into a plea bargain with the National Accountability Bureau dispense with the requirement of an inquiry before dismissal from service?
- Does Section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 mandate an inquiry by an Inquiry Officer or Committee before imposing a penalty?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
- Section 12, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
- Section 3, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
- Section 3(1)(c)(iv), Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
- Section 5, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, 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 Service 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 and 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 and 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-clauses (c)
(iv) in subsection (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 subsection (1) clearly lays down that if conditions given under sub-clauses (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.