MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others

MUHAMMAD MOOSA KHAN LEGHARI, J.--- While being posted as Preventive Officer at Jinnah Terminal Complex, Karachi, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16-11- 2001. He was later on issued a charge-sheet dated 27-2-2002 annexing therewith the statement of allegations alleging therein that the petitioner received illegal gratification from a passenger for releasing/allowing a VCR without payment of custom duty and taxes. In the inquiry conducted by Inquiry Officer the allegations against the petitioner were proved. He was issued a show-cause notice and after failing to satisfactorily rebut the charges, the petitioner was dismissed from the service under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, vide order dated 28-2-2003. Having failed to solicit a response to his departmental appeal, the petitioner filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26-1-2009. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The petitioner who appeared in person argued that there is no positive evidence to show that he accepted the illegal gratification from any passenger, as neither said passenger was examined nor oral evidence of any eye-witness was recorded. He further argued that there was no evidence either to show that the VCR was 'released by him without charging the custom duty.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent No,2, submitted that consequent upon the, decision taken by Government CCTV Cameras were installed at the Airport to record all the activities. There was a recording which revealed the petitioner accepting some money from a passenger who was having a VCR in the baggage which was released, for which a computerized ticket Was also issued. He contended that there was adequate evidence to prove the allegations against the petitioner.

4. We have considered the submissions and examined the material placed on record.

5. Initially the petitioner was suspended for the above act. He was properly charge-sheeted for the alleged misconduct and was provided with the details of the allegations. The reply submitted by him was duly considered but the same was not found satisfactory. There is no denial that the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which he participated. It is also evident that the recording was available to show the activity of the petitioner as a proof qua the allegations of accepting illegal gratification. After the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer a show-cause notice dated 28-7-2002 was issued to the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily refute the charges proved against him. Consequently, major penalty was imposed upon him. Nothing was available on the record to show that the action of the respondents was illegal, vindictive or tainted with malice. The Federal Service Tribunal examined the case in detail and rightly arrived at the just conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner of allowing the dutiable item to pass through knowingly in exchange for favour were established against him in the inquiry.

6. After considering all aspects of the case, we found no infirmity, error or jurisdictional defect in the judgment which is unexceptionable. The petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.