1993 PLC(CS) 742

ABDUL HAFEEZ Versus MASTER GENERAL OF ORDNANCE

Citation1993 PLC(CS) 742

CourtFederal Service Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. 230(R) of 1992

Date1992-10-31

Judge(s)M. Ilyas Lodhi and Rana Rifat Saeed Members

ResultOrder accordingly

M. ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).‑ ‑‑The appellant, Abdul Hafeez, filed this appeal against the impugned order of his dismissal from service dated 23‑2‑1991. He filed departmental appeal to the Master General of Ordnance, GHQ, Rawalpindi on 20‑3‑1991 to which he received no reply‑‑hence this appeal on 15‑7‑1991.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that while the appellant was working as Assistant Foreman in IAS & C Karachi, he was served with a charge‑sheet dated 12‑1‑1991. The following charge was levelled against him:‑

"Violation of normal channel of Command and using highly insolent and derogatory language against the Chief Inspector."

He replied to the same denying the charge levelled against him. He argued that in the absence of inquiry, no punishment could be awarded and under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, no authority vested to the Authorised Officer to suspend the inquiry procedure in order to drive his desired object and adopted short circuit method for dismissal from service by issuing show‑cause notice which was issued unlawfully. He submitted that according .to Rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 the Authorised Officer was bound to forward his case to the competent authority as such the whole exercise made by him appears to be illegal, mala fide and arbitrary. He also argued that awarding the major penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant, he was not given personal hearing and condemned unheard which also against the principle of law and natural justice. He Submitted that it is incorrect that the appellant had violated the normal channel of command by sending an application directly to DITD because the same was addressed to the Chief Inspector, IAS&C, Karachi‑12, and there is no specification of rules and instructions have been mentioned in the charge‑sheet which prohibit the employee from making application to his authority. The Authorised Officer made it a matter of personal vendetta and involved him in a false case, therefore, dismissal of the appellant is not sustainable in law on this score alone. He submitted that the appellant served the Government for about 22 years with unblemished record of service and never adversely reported by his superiors and rendered technical advice to his superiors. He prayed that the appeal be accepted setting aside the order of his dismissal and reinstate him in service with all back benefits.

3. The departmental representative who appeared before us argued that the contention of the appellant that he served with charge sheet under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 73 is not correct as under this rule, it relates to be observed by the Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Committee if so appointed by the Authorised Officer. The charge sheet was served upon him under Rule 5 ibid, and it was issued under the orders of the Authority. There was no need of any Inquiry Committee or appointment of Inquiry Officer because the charge of violation of channel was already stood proved in writing by the appellant in his own application dated 22‑12‑1990. In regard to denying the insolent and derogatory language by the appellant, the departmental representative has drawn our attention to paras 1 and 3 of his application dated 22‑12‑1990 and paras.4 and 5 to the reply of his charge‑sheet dated 15‑1‑1991. It has been established beyond any doubt that the appellant used insolent and derogatory language against his superiors by expressing his opinion to show that the Defence Authorities in Pakistan have not been properly administering the Department. As regard the contention of the appellant that the action taken against him was passed without any inquiry, is also wrong as the charge of misconduct was stood proved on the documentary evidence as the appellant under his own handwriting sent an application to the Authority and addressed a copy of the same to the Authorised Officer. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

4. In view of' the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the action taken by the Department was fully based on rules without any legal lacuna. However, we feel that the quantum of punishment for this charge is harsh and excessive. Therefore, keeping in view his 22 years long service, we modify the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement with no order as to costs.

5. Parties be informed.

A.A./781/Sr.F Order accordingly.