1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(On Appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17‑2‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 127(L)/92). ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Recovery of contraband drugs from the possession of civil servant for which allegedly he could not offer plausible explanation‑‑‑Evidence on record prima facie showed that civil servant's contention that such contraband drugs were kept in his office with the knowledge and consent of Regional Director as part of duty of civil servant was not denied in evidence against civil servant‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether in such state of evidence, Service Tribunal was justified in holding that charges levelled against civil servant stood proved. Mr. Aqil, Advocate‑on‑Record and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 31st May, 1994 SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: ‑‑The petitioner through this petition has called in question the order of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17‑2‑1993. The petitioner was working as Field Investigating Officer with the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board (P.N.C.B.) when he was dismissed from service on 13‑1‑1992. He was proceeded departmentally under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Rules'). He was charged with the allegations that during a raid of P.N.C.B. Regional Directorate, Lahore by the Director (Intelligence) 28,500 1Kgs Hashish and 375 grams of heroin was found in possession of the petitioner, for which he could not offer any plausible explanation. It was also found that an amount of Rs.27,931 was lying with the petitioner which was not accounted for. It was also charged that the drugs which were recovered from him were kept in an Almirah without a seal and mention of F.I.R. number instead of depositing the same in Malkhana. He was finally charged to be a member of the gang of P.N.C.B. who were receiving bribe money from the drug‑dealers/barons at Lahore. In the enquiry report he was found guilty of the charges and was accordingly served with a final show‑cause notice or 15‑12‑1991. After he filed his explanation to the final show‑cause notice and he was given personal hearing he was dismissed from service. From the enquiry report it appears that except the charge that the petitioner was a member of he gang who had been receiving bribe from the drug‑dealers/barons, all other charges were found established against the petitioner: The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the statement of Syed Irshad Hussain, Director (Intelligence) who had raided the office of the petitioner and made recoveries of heroin and other incriminating articles lying there, unauthorisedly. This Officer in reply to questions put by the petitioner/accused made the following statement:‑ The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the above statement of Director (Intelligence) who was the star witness of the prosecution, it could not be said that the charges against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that before the Service Tribunal the petitioner had applied for providing him the full text of enquiry report, which he alleged was not supplied to him, and he also made a prayer for production of the documents comprising statement of witnesses for perusal of the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, declined to grant the above request. From perusal of the statement of prosecution witness Syed Irshad Hussain, Director (Intelligence) who raided the office of the petitioner which is filed before us, it would prima facie appear that the contention of the petitioner that heroin and Hashish was kept in the office with the knowledge and consent of the Regional Director as part of the duty of the petitioner was not denied by this witness. In these circumstances it is to be determined whether in this state of prosecution evidence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. We accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the above legal question of public importance in the case. AA./M‑2110/S Leave granted.