JAVAID AHMAD BHATTI vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an earlier order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his removal from service by the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioner, a former employee, had been removed from service in 1983 following allegations of misconduct involving misbehavior at a government office. The core legal question in the review proceedings was whether the disciplinary action, which was ostensibly taken under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules but allegedly based on an ex parte inquiry without the petitioner's association, warranted judicial intervention. Upon review, the Court observed that the penalty of removal from service was excessive given the circumstances. Consequently, the respondent authority, in deference to the Court's observations, agreed to recall the removal order and substitute it with a formal warning. The Court allowed the review petition, set aside the removal order, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement into service, albeit without entitlement to consequential benefits, emphasizing proportionality in disciplinary sanctions for public servants.
- Can a court review a previous order if a material aspect regarding the procedure of a disciplinary inquiry was overlooked?
- Is the penalty of removal from service disproportionate for a misconduct involving a single incident of misbehavior by a trainee employee?
- Can a disciplinary authority substitute an order of removal from service with a warning upon judicial review?
- Efficiency & Discipline Rules
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 12-10-1985.
2. ' The petitioner, who is a young man, joined the Federal Investigation Agency in March, 1972, but only a month thereafter while still under training misconducted himself in that he went to the office of the District Education Officer (Women Wing) Rawalpindi and misbehaved with the officials on duty there to give vent to his feelings on account of the transfer of his sister Miss Nasim Akhtar from the Government Girls High School, Rawalpindi. This misconduct resulted in the Director-General of the F.I.A's ordering his removal from service, vide order dated 21-3-1983. This order was challenged by an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without success. The petition for leave to appeal against this order was dismissed by this Court on 12-10-1985. Hence this petition for review.
3. In support of the review petition it was contended that whereas the action against the petitioner had ostensibly been taken under the shorter procedure prescribed in the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, hut, in fact, the order was passed on an ex parte inquiry, described as a "probe", in which the petitioner A was not associated and hence the order was liable to he set aside on this ground. As this aspect of the matter had been overlooked in the earlier order of this Court, this was a fit case for review. The review petition was, accordingly, admitted and notice issued to the respondent.
4. ' In the course of the proceedings before us we considered that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner appeared to be excessive in the circumstances of the case and the ends of justice could have been served by reprimanding or administering a warning to the petitioner for being more careful in future. The petitioner also expressed his profound regrets for his improper conduct and assured that his conduct in the future would be exemplary, if given a further chance to serve in it.
5. ' In view of the above, the learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that in deference to the observations of this Court, the competent authority had decided to review and recall the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner and had decided to substitute that,order with an order of warning. It was, accordingly, withdrawing the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner and reinstating him into service without consequential benefits.
6. ' In view of the foregoing, we would allow this review petition. The order of removal passed against the petitioner dated 21-3-1983 shall be set aside and the petitioner reinstated into service, but not entitled to any consequential benefits. The review petition is disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Review .