ARIF GHAFOOR vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.M.C. TEXILA and others

ORDER

JAVED IQBAL J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-4- 2000 passed by learned Federal Serivce Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was Foreman in H .M C Texila and served with charge-sheet containing serious allegations amounting to misconduct. The petitioner vehemently repudiated all the allegations and resultantly an Enquiry Committee was constituted and found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and final show-cause notice was issued on 21-7- 1998. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5-8-1998, and after affording him opportunity of personal hearing, the Competent Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal vide order dated 22-10-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred departmental appeal, which was rejected. As a last resort the Federal Service Tribunal was approached by way of appeal which has been dismissed..

3. It is mainly contended by Mr. Ibrahim Satti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the learned Federal Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and glaring illegalities committed during enquiry were not considered without any rhyme and reason which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded enabling the petitioner to repudiate the allegations levelled against him and on this score alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It is urged emphatically that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Court of competent jurisdiction and accordingly disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated on the same charges which amounts to double jeopardy.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the impugned judgment. The enquiry report has been examined with care and caution. Let we mention here at the outset while adverting to the main contention of Mr. Ibrahim. Satti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner as mentioned hereinabove that "disciplinary proceedings" and "criminal proceedings" by no stretch of imagination can be termed as synonymous and interchangeable. The "disciplinary proceedings" and "criminal proceedings" are quite distinct to each other having altogether different characteristics and there is nothing common between the adjudicative forums by whom separate prescribed procedure and mechanism is followed for adjudication and both the forums have their own domain of jurisdiction. The decision of one forum would have no bearing on the decision of other forum in any manner whatsoever. In the said background, it would be a misconceived notion to consider the acquittal in a criminal trial as an embargo against disciplinary proceedings. The learned Federal Service Tribunal has rightly referred the law as laid down in 1996 SCM R 315. It is worth mentioning that the factum of acquittal pressed time and again into service was not on merits, but on the contrary it was an acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And no evidence worth the name could be produced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations for the reasons best known to it. Be that as it may, the acquittal was not on merits and thus the dictum as laid down in 2001 SCM R 269 and 1998 SCM R 2003 heavily relied upon by Mr. Ibrahim Satti Advocate cannot be made applicable in the peculiar circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove. Had the case been decided on merits and after recording of evidence, the situation would have been different. At this juncture it is to be noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with law, after recording evidence holding a comprehensive enquiry and affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner major penalty was imposed after having taking into consideration all pros and cons of the matter including the nature of allegations and past conduct of the petitioner. The action taken by the Competent Authority is neither whimsical nor arbitrary in nature, but is based on sound reasoning, concrete and worthy of credence evidence and being unexceptional hardly calls for any interference and learned Service Tribunal has rightly declined to do so. It is well-settled by now that "where no substantial law, muchless question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, a finding of Service Tribunal being a finding of fact would not call for any interference by Supreme Court". In this regard reference can be made to the case titled Ch. Muhammad Azim v.

The Chief Engineer Irrigation and others 1991 SCM R 255. Even otherwise a finding of fact recorded by Tribunal on the basis of record and evidence before Tribunal cannot be interfered by this Court.

In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the case titled Muhammad Nawaz v.

Divisional Forest Officer, Jauharabad and 2 others 1982 SCM R 880. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal and accordingly the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.