CHIEF EXECUTIVE, HESCO (WAPDA), HYDERABAD and another vs SIKANDAR
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's service appeal was partially accepted, converting the penalty of compulsory retirement to reduction of time scale by two steps for three years without cumulative effect. The petitioner contended that the respondent was found guilty of accepting illegal gratification during a preliminary inquiry and that no regular inquiry was mandated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Conversely, the respondent argued that no regular inquiry was conducted, the show-cause notice failed to dispense with it, and the punishment order was issued by an incompetent authority. The Supreme Court observed that neither a regular inquiry was held nor was the issuing authority competent. However, noting that the respondent did not challenge the minor penalty and that the Tribunal's judgment was based on proper appreciation of the record, the Court held that no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution was involved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a show-cause notice be issued by an authority other than the competent authority?
- Does the conversion of compulsory retirement into a minor penalty by the Service Tribunal warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30-4-2008, passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Service Appeal, filed by the respondent Sikandar Ali Khawaja, was partially accepted and he was reinstated into service from the date he was compulsorily retired to the extent that the penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into reduction of time scale by two steps for three years without cumulative effect.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the face of documentary evidence, during preliminary inquiry, available on record respondent-Sikandar Ali Khawaja was found guilty; that the respondent failed to give plausible reply on the face of documentary evidence; that the respondent has taken an amount of Rs,45,000 illegal gratification from a private person which was duly proved; although the respondent was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, yet there was no need, to hold regular inquiry, however, the respondent was duly heard by the Inquiry Office during the course of inquiry and that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Therefore, leave to appeal may be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioners issued the show-eause notice against the respondent-Sikandar Ali Khawaja on the basis of fact-finding inquiries and no regular inquiry was conducted in the matter; that the show-cause notice does not indicate as to why the regular inquiry was dispensed with and that the order of punishment against the respondent was issued by an incompetent authority i,e, Chief Engineer whereas in this case the competent authority was Managing Director/Member WAPDA.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and gone through the entire material available on record with their able assistance. Admittedly, neither any regular inquiry was held by the departmental authority nor the Chief Engineer was competent to issue show -cause notice. In fact, two senior officers held the fact-finding inquiries. The view expressed by the members of fact-finding officers had pushed certain facts against the respondent not by initiating regular inquiry so as to prove the charge. However, the learned Tribunal restored him in service from the date he was compulsorily retired but awarded minor penalty of reduction in time scale by two steps for three years without cumulative effect. The said punishment was not challenged by the respondent which ex facie, reflects that he was involved in receiving the illegal gratification as disclosed in the allegations. The impugned judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment justifying interference by this Court. No substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is involved.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.