REHMAT ALI SHAH vs SECRETARY, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION, RAWALPINDI
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his dismissal from service for cash shortage and misappropriation while serving as a Cashier in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the same lenient treatment of conversion of penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement as given to another co-employee in similar circumstances, and whether the inquiry suffered from procedural defects. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that arguable points were raised regarding the consistency of tribunal orders and the evidentiary basis of the inquiry. The key principle laid down is that judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals must maintain consistency in deciding similar matters involving co-employees, and leave to appeal may be granted when inconsistent orders are passed.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to pass consistent orders in similar matters involving co-employees?
- Can an employee be held guilty of misappropriation without proper evidence and inquiry conducted in support of the charge?
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 3-10-1988 alleging that a sum of Rs,53,104.93 had been found short in cash during the petitioner's tenure as Cashier in Pakistan Ordnance Factory. An inquiry was conducted and it was held that the amount had been misappropriated during the petitioner's tenure. The petitioner was called upon to deposit the said amount. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner was served with another notice, dated 31-10-1984 that on further investigation it had been revealed that a sum of Rs,1,34,075.58 had been found short in cash. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner was dismissed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal but without any result. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 17-11-1985.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a similar charge against one Ashiq Hussain, the Tribunal while dealing with his appeal, had observed that there was no evidence that the shortage occurred due to misappropriation, and giving him the benefit of doubt, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was converted into compulsory retirement. According to him, in the petitioner's case as well there is no evidence that the shortage alleged against him was on account of misappropriation or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment as was given to Ashiq Hussain. It has further been contended that no inquiry was conducted in the present case and no evidence was led in support of the charge and that on the basis of the cross-examination of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge against him. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal has not passed consistent orders in respect of two similar matters. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Arif Siddiqui v. Government of Pakistan (1988 SCM R 673), and Abdur Rehman Babar v.
N.-W.F.P. Through the Chief Secretary Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. (1989 SCM R 928) .
3. Leave is granted. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus M.S. MENTAL HOSPITAL , M. Sharif Butt 2000 SCMR 71
- SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus M.S., MENTAL HOSPITAL , M. Sharif Butt 2000 PLC(CS) 342