2002 SCMR 886 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 12th December, 2001. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated 21‑4‑2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Session at Quetta) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Service Appeal No,90(Q)(CS) of 2000.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was posted as Supervisor in T&T Department at Khuzdar. On 1‑4‑2000 the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Khuadar, alongwith the present petitioner carried on general inspection of the local Network. During the process of inspection, the Divisional Engineer detected that unauthorized and illegal tampering of the underground digital cable was made at the site within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. Moreover unauthorized connections were extended to a great number of telephone subscribers by passing the digital switch room/exchange in order to avoid the recording thereof. The Divisional Engineer Telegraphs, Khuzdar, prepared a detailed and comprehensive report. Consequent to this report, the petitioner was issued charge‑sheet alongwith the statement of allegations. He submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet. Thereafter, the department appointed an Inquiry Committee consisting of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Khan Safi, Director Telegraphs WTR, Quetta, as Chairman, Mr. Daulat Khan, D.E. O&M Sariab Exchange Quetta and Habibullah Khan, D,E. Central‑III, Quetta, as Members. After conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Committee submitted its report with the conclusions that:‑‑ "Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, E. S. Telegraph Division, Khuzdar was involved in above malpractice and he is prima facie guilty for such illegal activities, hence the charges levelled against him stand established." As a consequence to the inquiry report, show‑cause notice was issued and served upon the petitioner by the D.E., Telegraphs, Khuzdar in his capacity as Authorized Officer. The petitioner filed his reply to the show‑cause notice and he was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the competent authority i.e. Deputy General Manager of the department/company awarded major penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner with immediate effect.

3. The petitioner filed his departmental appeal on 16‑8‑2000, which according to him was not replied, therefore, he filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is neither legal nor in accordance with law; that the charges levelled against the petitioner were false and fabricated and he was dragged into the departmental proceedings without confirming the facts whether he is guilty or not, and that the competent authority without considering the essential requirements awarded major punishment by dismissing the petitioner from service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that proceedings against the petitioner were taken by the department in accordance with law and rules; that Inquiry Committee headed by the Director was appointed, which found the petitioner guilty of the illegal activities and the charges against him were established: that the competent authority after due consideration awarded major penalty of dismissal from service, which order was challenged before‑the‑Tribunal and the Tribunal also considered the entire case in its proper perspective, and that the petitioner may be dismissed.

6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. The Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs during general inspection detected unauthorized and illegal tampering of underground digital cable. On his report an Inquiry Committee was appointed, which after due consideration and affording full opportunity of participation in inquiry to the petitioner found him guilty of the illegal activities. The report of the Inquiry Committee was accepted and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The Tribunal after considering all aspects of the case, with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:‑‑ "

10. The appellant in his replies to the charge‑sheet as well as show -cause notice has also tried to shift his burden to some other staff members but the same would not lessen the responsibility of the appellant himself who was very much part of this entire illegal and unuthorized activity in his capacity as supervisor. However, the respondents would have been in far better position to deduce the results and to arrive at a decision to spread over dragnet to unearth other delinquent subordinates, if they so desired in the interest of healthier ‑running of their Network. For this Tribunal it would be sufficient" to confine ourselves to the appeal of the appellant which is before us.

7. We do not find illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, which is entirely based on the proper appreciation of material available with the Tribunal. Moreover, question of public importance, as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not involved in this case. The petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑93/S Petition dismissed.