ANWAR ALI KHAN vs D.G. FIA and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his removal from service. The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Federal Investigation Agency, was suspended, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and ultimately removed from service after a show-cause notice was issued, despite the Inquiry Officer having recommended a minor penalty. The core legal question was whether the competent authority and the Service Tribunal properly evaluated the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner's grounds of challenge. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court held that while the competent authority is empowered to take a different view from the Inquiry Officer, the Tribunal is legally required to consider and adjudicate upon all substantial grounds raised by an appellant rather than resting its decision on a single proposition. The key principle established is that appellate or tribunal forums must comprehensively address all legal and factual contentions raised by parties.
- Can a competent authority impose a major penalty when the inquiry officer has recommended a minor penalty?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to consider all grounds raised in a service appeal?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate tribunal fails to consider material grounds raised by a party?
ORDER
' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- Aggrieved by the judgment dated 6-6-2009 passed the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, the petitioner preferred this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Briefly the facts to decide the petition are that the petitioner joined F.I.A. As Head Constable on 21- 9-1985 and was serving in the same position at Jinnah International Airport, Karachi, when he was placed under suspension on 18-2-2006 and was served with charge-sheet dated 30-3-2006 along with statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 24-6-2006 along with copy of inquiry. The petitioner did not find favour with the competent authority and order for his removal from service was passed. His departmental representation did not merit any response and consequently the petitioner filed service appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time frame.
3. Learned Federal Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated 6-6-2006 dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that though minor penalty was recommended by the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority, after giving show-cause notice to the petitioner indicating the order of major penalty can be passed, rightly passed order of removal from service.
4. Heard Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, appearing for the petitioner.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that although minor penalty was proposed by. The Inquiry Officer but the competent authority without providing proper opportunity of hearing passed order of removal from service.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as perused the record. From the perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him in the charge-sheet as well as show-cause notice and that material witnesses were not examined, enquiry was riot properly conducted also before the Tribunal but the Tribunal passed the impugned order by holding that a competent authority can take different view than the view taken by. The Inquiry Officer. There is no cavil to this proposition but since the Tribunal failed to take in consideration other grounds taken by the petitioner, we convert this petition into appeal, allow the same set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case of the petitioner afresh after hearing the parties.