MUHAMMAD MUJTABA KHAN vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. And Other
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, whereby the dismissal of the petitioner, an A.S.-I. in Grade-5, from service by the Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency, was upheld. The core legal question raised was whether the proceedings were vitiated because the Deputy Director was allegedly not the competent Authorized Officer to issue the show-cause notice under the applicable rules and Standing Order. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the competence of the Authorized Officer was not challenged before the Tribunal and no material was produced to substantiate that the Deputy Director lacked such authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal.
- Whether the proceedings are vitiated if the show-cause notice is issued by an alleged incompetent authorized officer?
- Can a petitioner challenge the competence of an authorized officer for the first time without producing supporting evidence?
- Rule 2(3), Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving as an A.S.-I. When he was dismissed from service on 21-7-88 by the Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency, Northern Zone. His departmental appeal was dismissed by the Director General, F.IA. He challenged the order of his dismissal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.
2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was serving- in Grade-5, the Deputy Director was not the Authorised Officer who issued the show- cause notice to the petitioner, therefore, the entire proceedings had been vitiated. He has referred to the Standing Order whereby the Director was designated as Authority for the civil servants holding the posts in Grades 3 to 6. The learned counsel submitted that the Authorised Officer had not been nominated by the Government, para. 9 specifically states that the Authority may authorise appropriate officers to perform the function of Authorised Officer under sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It was submitted before the Service Tribunal that the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director who was the Authorised Officer under the Standing Order. This contention of the respondent was not challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Even before us, no such order has been produced to show that the Deputy Director was not the Authorised Officer.
3. We see no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.