1970 PLP 634 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner who belongs to the Civil Service of Pakistan, was compulsorily retired from service by the President of Pakistan on the 8th of June 1966, acting in the exercise of his powers under rule 3 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. This order had followed the result of an inquiry conducted against the petitioner by Mr. D. K. Power who was appointed as an inquiry officer under the aforesaid Rules, on charges which included one of corruption and acquisition of pecuniary resources and properties dispropor tionate to the known sources of his income. Before the order was made by the President retiring the petitioner, a formal show cause notice was issued to him to explain why that penalty should not be imposed. He was supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer to submit his reply within 14 days. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory. On the 25th of June 1966, the petitioner filed a review application to the President of Pakistan, which was rejected on the 28th of July 1966. Failing in his departmental remedies, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962, in which he challenged the order of his compulsory retirement, on the ground that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action, as contemplated under Article 177 of that Constitu tion. The writ petition was dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal. The grievances listed in the High Court which were argued there and which have also been repeated before us are that the inquiry was marred by the defects that a list of witnesses was not given to the petitioner in advance before their examination nor was he supplied with a summary of their statements, which hindered their effective cross‑examination by the petitioner, that, one Abdul Alim, who was summoned as a defence witness at State expense, was not called and that the petitioner was not allowed to be defended by a legal practitioner during the inquiry. The learned Judges of the High Court in a detailed judgment have considered `each one of these objections and have found that none of them is substantiated and that the petitioner had had a full opportunity of meeting the charges against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to tell us that the inquiry officer had taken any step during the inquiry which was not sanctioned by the Rules or he had, in any manner, acted contrary to those Rules. He has not brought any circumstance to our notice on the basis of which it may be urged that the petitioner's case was prejudiced in any manner or at any stage during the inquiry proceedings. We think that no valid ground is disclosed for our interference in this matter. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused