JAVAID AKHTAR vs DIRECTOR CUSTOMER SERVICES P.IA. KARACHI and 2
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a traffic officer with Pakistan International Airlines (P.I.A.), from service. The petitioner was dismissed following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of colluding with cargo loaders to replace customs-cleared cartons with cartons containing 350 kilograms of narcotics (cannabis resin) at the Lahore Airport. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's dismissal was justified despite his claim of innocence and the fact that police investigation had initially found no incriminating evidence against him. The Supreme Court held that the departmental findings were supported by evidence, specifically noting the petitioner's presence at the cargo site and his failure to report the illicit activity to authorities, which established his collusion. The Court affirmed that a police finding of innocence does not automatically absolve an employee of departmental charges based on separate evidence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the Court found no grounds for further consideration.
- Does a police finding of innocence in a criminal investigation automatically absolve an employee of departmental charges?
- Can failure to report illicit activity to authorities constitute sufficient evidence of collusion in a departmental inquiry?
- Is a departmental inquiry finding of guilt sustainable when the employee claims innocence based on a lack of criminal evidence?
- Section 156(1), Customs Act 1968
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26-5-1990; whereby, his appeal before the Tribunal against his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. ' Javaid Akhtar petitioner is a traffic officer in the P.IA. Who was charged in an F.I.R. No,12/85 dated 10-5-1985 for an offence under section 156(1)157-178 of Customs Act, 1968. Departmental inquiry proceeded against him and a show-cause notice was issued to him to the effect that he on 7th February, 1985 with mala fide intention paid a visit to Cargo Export Shed of Lahore Airport and with the collusion of Mr. Riaz Akhtar, Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Suleman Cargo Loaders, unlawfully changed 12 customs cleared cartons with fresh cartons of equal number brought by one Tariq Saeed which contained 350 kgs. Of Narcotics (CANABIS RESIN). A Departmental Inquiry Committee was constituted to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner which found him guilty and on its recommendation the petitioner was dismissed from service on 30-7-1986.
3. ' The petitioner filed a departmental appeal against his dismissal which was rejected and his subsequent appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was also dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal for leave to appeal before us.
4. ' The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the police has once investigated the case against the petitioner who found that as no incriminating evidence could be collected which could be brought on the file against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of the offence and held him innocent.
5. We have gone through the record of the case and found that mere pardon recommended in the case of the petitioner will not absolve him from the charges levelled against him. It has been proved from the evidence on record that the petitioner had gone to the cargo site alongwith Riaz Akhtar Cargo Supervisor and the plea taken by the petitioner that he had informed Ikramul Haq a Security Supervisor about the activity of Riaz Akhtar Cargo Supervisor had been denied by Qazi Ikramul Haq. As the petitioner failed to report the matter to the authorities that after he having found the customs cleared cartons being replaced by cartons containing narcotics is a proof of clear collusion of the petitioner with the other accused and rather proves his guilt by taking his part in the replacement of the said cartons and also not reporting the matter to the authorities concerned.
6. ' Under the circumstances and foregoing facts, we do not think it is a fit case for further consideration. It is accordingly dismissed and .