ABDUL GHAFOOR SHEIKH vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Customs Inspector, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct involving connivance with a passenger to smuggle Pakistani currency abroad by clandestinely granting customs clearance. Following a formal inquiry where the charges were established, the petitioner was penalized. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the departmental inquiry and the Service Tribunal, and whether any question of law of public importance under the Constitution was raised. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of defense during the inquiry, that the findings of guilt were based on tenable material, and that no question of law of public importance was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Service Tribunal and inquiry officer in a service matter without a question of law of public importance?
- Whether a civil servant facing disciplinary proceedings for misconduct must be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence?
- Does an allegation of connivance in smuggling by a government servant constitute misconduct under the relevant efficiency and discipline rules?
- Rule 2(4), Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973
- Rule 4(b), Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973
- Rule 5, Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973
- Rule 6, Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner while serving as Inspector Customs was proceeded against after preliminary inquiry on charges of misconduct as follows:-- "Whereas it has been reported that you Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Sheikh Inspector while posted at Dryport Lahore visited the Airport Lahore on .13-4-1995 and connived with a passenger namely Khalid Mehmood bound for Dubai for smuggling of Pakistani currency of Rs, 50,00,000 and clandestinely granted Customs clearance to the said passenger by stamping and initialing his ticket.
2. This behaviour and action on your part tantamounts to gross misconduct, inefficiency and negligence of duty, which comes within the meaning of "Misconduct" as defined under Rule 2(4) of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and warrants imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 4(b) ibid.
3. Now, therefore, you Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Sheikh, Inspector Customs are hereby charge sheeted on the basis of allegations contained in the enclosed statement of allegations. In order to provide you adequate opportunity of defence, it has been decided to hold a formal enquiry against you.
4. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khichi, Deputy Secretary, Inquiry Wing Lahore has been appointed as Inquiry Officer under Rule 5 read with Rule 6 ibid to conduct enquiry into the charges contained in the enclosed statement of allegations. You are directed to send your written reply directly to the enquiry officer within ten days of receipt of this letter with a copy to the undersigned. You are further directed to state whether you want to be heard in person."
2. On the basis of the afore-referred charges Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, Deputy Director Customs was appointed as inquiry officer who having examined the evidence led before him, found as follows:- "The charges levelled against him as in the statement of allegations have been established. Mr. Asad Farooq, Inspector as well as Mr. Tajammal Baqua, Dy. Supdt on duty failed in their responsibilities for performance of their official duties and also abetting in the act of smuggling of Pakistani currency through the passenger to check/supervise the smuggling of huge Pakistani, currency of Rs, 50,00,000."
3. The learned Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, as according to it, petitioner fully participated in the inquiry; that he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead evidence. The charges levelled stood established and therefore, no case for interference was made out.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that petitioned was not posted at the airport at the relevant time; that he had no reason to be there and that the allegation that he facilitated Khalid Muhammad passenger bound for Dubai for smuggling of Pakistani currency of Rs, 50,00,000 is incorrect and that even the allegation that the ticket that passenger was carrying was stamped by the petitioner was not proved.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that admittedly the inquiry officer who conducted the inquiry was not inimical towards the petitioner; that during the inquiry petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead evidence in defence and the inquiry officer found the material against him to be tenable to establish his guilt with regard to the charges levelled. Learned counsel has not referred to anything in evidence which. Could persuade us to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. No question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been raised either.
The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and .