ZAHID HUSSAIN vs CITY SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE, PESHAWAR and another
This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against his compulsory retirement from service. The appellant, a postal clerk, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, suspended, and eventually compulsorily retired following allegations of issuing fictitious motor vehicle registration certificates and causing financial loss to the government. The core legal question raised was whether the appellant was denied a fair inquiry due to the alleged non-supply of relevant material evidence, specifically certain registers, and whether the authorized officer was competent to impose a major penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had correctly found on facts that the requisite documents were indeed supplied or made available for inspection, while irrelevant documents were rightly withheld, and that the record was not misread. The key principle laid down is that where a service tribunal properly examines the record and finds that relevant inquiry documents were provided to the accused civil servant, allegations of denial of fair opportunity will not invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether the non-supply of inquiry documents to a civil servant vitiates disciplinary proceedings where the service tribunal finds the documents were actually provided or rightly denied as irrelevant?
- Does compulsory retirement from service stand justified when a civil servant is found involved in financial irregularities causing loss to the government exchequer?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the supply of material evidence without a clear case of misreading of record?
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---In this appeal, through leave of the Court, the vires of judgment, dated 19-12-1993 made by the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, have been challenged by the appellant on the sole ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the effect of non-supply of the most relevant material evidence to him, while dismissing Appeal No,83(P) of 1993.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellant was working as Clerk in Khyber Bazar Post Office, Peshawar. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him and he was suspended with effect from 12-7-1987, vide order, dated 15-7-1987. Subsequently, he was reinstated in service on 24-12- 1987 and posted in the same Post Office. Appellant was again suspended on 2-5-1988 and was served with charge-sheet, dated 22-6-1992, with a statement of allegations appended thereto.
Finally, by order, dated 10-10-1992, he was compulsorily retired from service and the period of suspension was treated as absence from duty and he was directed to pay Rs,90,4I9 as half of the amount of the loss sustained by the Government. His departmental appeal, dated 1-11-1992 remaining undecided, he filed Appeal No,83(P) of 1993 before the Tribunal on 27-2-1993, after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days.
3. Para. 2 of the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal contains the details of the allegations and the same reads thus:- "2. The allegations against the appellant are that on 12-7-1987, the CIA Police found the appellant driving his Car No,PRK-9293 on G.T. Road, Peshawar. He was searched and some Registration Books were recovered from his car wherein serious irregularities were found. The main allegations against the appellant are that he gave false coverage by making fake entries in the Registration Books with regard to payment of tax and thereby issued fictitious certificates that actual tax was paid at different places e.g. Khairpur, Hyderabad, Badin etc. He then procured applications from the car owners and prepared duplicate Registration Books thereby causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs,1,80,837.
25."
4. Leave grant order, dated 10-5-1994 is couched in the following words:-- "Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the material placed before the Enquiry Officer no case could be made out against the petitioner specially when he was not provided with the documents allegedly attributed to his negligence.
Furthermore, that authorised officer, who served the charge-sheet, on the petitioner was not competent to impose major penalty on the petitioner."
5. We have heard Mr. Atiqur Rehman Qazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has also taken us through available material. By referring to page 35 of the Paper Book he contended that photostat copies of the Register PT-3 showing the relevant entries, were not provided him to meet the charges and that the treatment meted out to appellant Zahid Hussain does entitle him to the relief claimed.
6. We are afraid the contention loses sight of the fact that appellant's statement before the Inquiry Officer, contained in his reply, dated 25-7-1992, was specifically noticed in the impugned judgment, dated 19-12-1993 and the Tribunal came to a definite finding that the requisite documents were supplied to the appellant. It was also noticed that some of the documents were made available for inspection, "... But some of them were rightly denied as those documents had no relevancy with the facts of this case". Even the use of political influence by the appellant on the departmental authorities was considered by the learned Tribunal to have resulted in the departmental authorities taking a lenient view i,e,, compulsorily retiring him from service. It is not the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has misread the record/evidence to record the above findings in its judgment, dated 19-12-1993'.
7. No other point was argued.
8. For all that has gone before, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.