FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus NOOR HUSSAIN PATHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal of respondent Noor Hussain Pathan and reinstated him in service with back benefits after he was dismissed for allegedly aiding and abetting the escape of a smuggler in his custody. The core legal question is whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law and whether it properly appraised the entire record, including previous inquiry reports, statements of witnesses, and the respondent's own F.I.R. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to properly go through the entire record and the reasons provided by the authorised officer for disagreeing with the inquiry findings. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal must conduct a comprehensive and proper appraisement of the entire evidentiary record before setting aside disciplinary action taken by competent authorities.
- Whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law when it fails to properly appraise the entire record?
- Can an authorised officer disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer by recording cogent reasons in the show-cause notice?
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑ ‑Respondent Noor Hussain Pathan, Field Investigating, Officer of Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, was dismissed from service on the charge that he aided and abetted in the escape of a smuggler who was in his custody. The Federal Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and in consequence reinstated him with back benefits. Feeling aggrieved, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Narcotics Control Division, and the Chairman, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Rawalpindi have filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. Raja M. Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney‑General, submitted before us that in respect of the charge mentioned above on three occasions in the past inquiry was held: In the first instance, the authorised officer did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer and held that the inquiry was not properly conducted in the second instance, the enquiry officer gave finding to‑the effect that the respondent was not guilty and the same finding was given in the third report. It appears that the Federal Service Tribunal was impressed by this factor in coming to the conclusion it has.
3. Contention raised before us is that the Federal Service Tribunal has not gone through the entire record and particularly the statement of P.C. Zakir Hussain and the statement on oath of the respondent. Our attention is also drawn to the F.I.R. filed by the respondent in which it is stated that Said Jamal was in his custody and escaped. It is further contended that the authorised officer has given cogent reasons to disagree with the third inquiry p report and such reasons are stated in the show‑cause notice issued to the respondent.
4. Leave is granted to consider as to whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law and has been made after proper appraisement of the entire record.
A.A./F‑395/S Leave granted.