Syed FAZAL ABBAS vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION And Another

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-7-1991 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 19(K) of 1989, filed by the petitioner, who was working as a Cargo Assistant in the respondent-Corporation at the relevant time, against the order of his removal dated 10-11-1988 passed by the respondent under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dismissing the same on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the above appeal, inter alia observed as follows: -- "4The appellant was removed from service under the provisions of section 10(1) of the PIAC Act, which empowers the Corporation to remove from service any employee without assigning any reason, but after giving him an opportunity of hearing in person. The respondents have stated that the appellant was given due opportunity of hearing in person. The facts in the background of the action taken against the appellant were that some narcotics were smuggled by means of a PIA flight destined for a foreign country during the course of duty hours of the appellant. Such involvement did make the appellant liable for the action taken against him by way of the impugned order of his removal from service."

The petitioner has, therefore, filed the above petition for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner, as a Cargo Assistant, was not obliged to check whether any carton containing narcotics was wrongly placed in the container of fruits destined to a foreign country through a P.I.A. Flight, as the petitioner was concerned with the cargo of, which manifests were filed and not unauthorised cargo. It has been further urged by him that the petitioner has been condemned unheard as no-proper inquiry was held.

3. In this regard, it may be pertinent to observe that the impugned action was taken uader subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act, which reads as follows: -- "(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any law, settlement or award for the time being in force, or any rules or regulations framed under this Act, or any rules, regulations, orders or instructions issued by the Corporation, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under the Corporation, the Corporation may at any time retire or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him an opportunity of being heard and not less than ninety days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of ninety days; and, subject to subsection (3), no such order of retirement or removal shall be called in question before any Court or Tribunal or other authority."

A perusal of the above subsection indicates that notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of the above section 10, any settlement or award for the time being in force or any rules or regulations framed under the Act or any rules, regulations, orders or instructions issued by the Corporation, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, under the Corporation, the Corporation may at any time retire or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason after giving him an opportunity of being heard and not less than ninety days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of ninety days and subject to subsection (3) which provides an appeal before the Service Tribunal. It further provides that no order of retirement or removal shall be called in question before any Court or Tribunal or other authority subject to the appeal before the Service Tribunal under subsection (3).

4. In the present case, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that there was some basis for the respondent to have invoked above subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act, as it is an admitted position that the petitioner was acting as a Cargo Assistant at the time when the aforesaid two cartons containing narcotics were placed in the fresh fruit container which was loaded in a P.IA.

Flight for a foreign country. The petitioner, being a Cargo Assistant, was very much involved in the loading of container and, therefore, if any unauthorised cartons containing narcotics were placed in the fresh fruit container, it cannot be urged that he was not, in any way, involved.

5. In our view, it was not necessary for the respondent to have held a full-dressedinquiry before invoking subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was heard in terms of above subsection (2) of section 10. The respondent has taken action not against the petitioner alone but other staff as well which was on duty at the relevant time, and on the relevant date at the Airport. It will not be possible to prove the individual act on the part of each of the employees and, therefore, the respondent, instead of holding an inquiry and dismissing the petitioner on the ground of, misconduct, pressed into service subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act, which was justified.

Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the present action was mala fide. We may also observe that if an action is taken for public good, the Court will not declare the same as illegal on technical ground keeping in view the conditions obtaining at present and the factum that Pakistan is treated by the community of nations as one of the leading suppliers of narcotics. The above action seems to be in the interest of public and the country and, therefore, it cannot be declared as illegal on technical ground. Even otherwise, the petition does not involve a substantial question of law of public importance in terms of clause

(3) of Article 212 of the Constitution. Leave is, accordingly, I refused.