1999SCMR2341 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3), of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1983 against the dismissal of his Appeal No.911-R of 1997, by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.

2. The facts of the case which gleaned from the record are that the petitioner who was employee of WAPDA as Sub-Engineer (Electricity) and posted at Tarbela Dam was transferred to 1st Area Electricity Board, Islamabad, and then to Mandi Bahauddin. He was called upon to hand over regular charge vide letter, dated 19-10-1988. During the process of handing over/taking over charge, it appears that shortage of huge articles of stores was detected. He was therefore, served with a show-cause notice on 21-5-1997 whereafter a formal inquiry was conducted against him. In consequence of this inquiry, he was found guilty of causing loss to stores to the tune of Rs.3,05,520,

50. The competent Authority vide the impugned order imposed upon the petitioner minor penalty of recovery of the aforementioned amount. Feeling aggrieved, he filed departmental appeal before the competent Authority on 4-10-1997 which was rejected vide order dated 27-11-1997. Ultimately he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The answering respondents, in their comments before the Service Tribunal, maintained that the appeal was misconceived, inasmuch as the respondents had already taken a lenient view of the matter by imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner in the circumstances "when the acts of omission and commission proved against the petitioner warranted a major penalty" as envisaged by the provisions of WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, and that in any case, "the petitioner has not approached the Service Tribunal with clean hands".

3. The Service Tribunal took notice of the conduct of the petitioner during the inquiry holding that "the petitioner mischievously appears to have made an attempt to avoid his responsibilities to the total oblivion whereby he had omitted a portion of the original certificate which he had furnished to the competent Authority regarding completion of handing over/taking over of the charge on 24-1-1989 undertaking complete responsibility in the event of divulgence of some discrepancies against him by the Audit". Again according to the Tribunal, "the record, especially the show-cause notice, the charge-sheet and finding of the Inquiry Officer and other connecting documents amply proved the involvement of the appellant in the shortage of the store items valuing Rs.3,05,485.50" as it appears in the impugned order. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the petitioner who had himself under taken that he would be responsible for the losses, he was rightly adjudged to be liable to make up the shortage of the Store Items valuing Rs.3,05,485.50. The appeal was, thus, dismissed with costs and the amount aforesaid was directed to be recovered from the appellant as early as possible for "crediting it in the Government Treasury under the relevant head of account".

4. Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, learned Advocate Supreme Court, in support of this petition took exception to the findings of the impugned inquiry report made available at pages 57 to 65 of paper book and submitted that the three Senior Officers of the WAPDA had exonerated the petitioner from all the defalcations in the stores, in their earlier, report.

5. It is, however, settled proposition that the competent Authority may, in its discretion, accept the report of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee or may not accept it. If the competent Authority decides not to accept the report of the Inquiry Officer or of Inquiry Committee, then another Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee can be legally constituted to hold an inquiry against the delinquent civil servant. In the instant case, the Competent Authority seems to have been dissatisfied with the earlier report of the Inquiry Committee and appointed an Inquiry Officer who found the petitioner guilty of shortage of store items valuing Rs.3,05,485.50.

6. The Inquiry Officer is not shown to have conducted the impugned inquiry against the petitioner in violation of any rule of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. A proper procedure as envisaged by rules 5, 5-A, 6 and 6-A of these rules has been adhered to. The finding of fact arrived at by the Inquiry Officer was rightly not interfered with by the learned Tribunal inasmuch as the question of fact decided by the competent Inquiry Office or the Inquiry Committee is unexceptionable in so far as the Tribunal is concerned, unless gross injustice vitiating the findings of fact is made discernible on the record. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

7. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer or for that matter, the learned Tribunal acted either perversely or purely on conjectures in accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner liable for shortage in the store items at the time of handing over/taking over the charge by the petitioner. We see no reason to disagree that no case, for interference by this Court has been made out. We are satisfied that case of miscarriage of justice has also not been made discernible on the record. We accordingly dismiss this petition and would decline leave to appeal. M.B.A./M-343/S Petition dismissed.