2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(e) purchased NIT's Staff Car No.GP.0239/4‑450 at a reduced value of Rs.1,86,000 on your transfer from NIT despite the fact that under NIT's Rules the benefit of obtaining a car on book value is available only to the employees of NIT and that too on superannuation whereas you were neither entitled to this facility being deputationist nor were retiring from service; and (f) have assumed a style of living beyond your ostensible means of income and acquired a persistent reputation of being corrupt, as reflected besides (a) to (e) above in owning a palatial Bungalow No.88-E located at Sindhi Muslim Commercial Housing Society Karachi, also not declared in your declaration of Assets for the year 1995 in which by instructions issued to all Government servants, previous and present acquisitions had to be consolidated. And whereas 1, the Authorized Officer, having decided in terms of Rule 5(1)(iii) of Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 that it is not necessary to have an inquiry into the above charges conducted through an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee; Now, therefore, you Mr. Asadullah Shaikh, Officer on Special Duty (under suspension), Establishment Division, .are hereby called upon to show cause as to why a major penalty which includes the penalty of dismissal from service, may not be imposed upon you under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, on the above grounds. Your written reply to this show‑cause notice should reach the undersigned within fourteen days of its receipt by you, failing which it would be presumed that you have no defence to offer and ex parte decision would be taken. You may also state whether you wart to be heard in person. " The petitioner submitted his reply on 23‑5‑1997 and denied all the charges contained in the above show‑cause notice. In the end of his reply he stated that an opportunity be provided enabling him to further clarify the alleged charges levelled against him. It was also stated by him that he was presently in London (U.K.) in connection with medical treatment of his sop. Waqas who was an in‑patient in Hammersmith Hospital, London, for bone marrow transplant. The reply submitted by the petitioner was thrashed and he was again asked through letter dated 8‑7‑1997 by the Joint Secretary, Establishment Division, to avail the facility of personal hearing between 23‑7‑1997 to 31‑7‑1997. The said letter reads as under:‑‑ "Please refer to your reply dated nil to the show‑cause notice dated 7th May, 1997.

2. The Establishment Secretary, in his capacity as Authorised Officer, having considered your reply to the show‑cause notice dated 7th May, 1997, has been pleased to direct that you should appear for personal hearing between 23‑7‑1997 to 31‑7‑1997, before him in his office (Cabinet Block, Islamabad), by prior appointment on a date convenient to the Authorised Officer.

3. In case you do not avail this opportunity it will be presumed that you are no more interested in personal hearing and the disciplinary case against you will be decided on the basis of the reply to the show‑cause notice furnished by you, without further notice. On receipt of above letter the petitioner again showed his inability to avail the opportunity of personal hearing due to ailment of his son at London. The Competent Authority, after considering his reply, through notification dated 28‑8‑1997 imposed upon him the major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, against the impugned order of his dismissal from service. It remained pending before the Tribunal for a period of more than 2 and a half years as all the times adjournments were sought by the petitioner because of his preoccupation in London due to medical treatment of his son. Ultimately, the Tribunal heard the appeal under Rule 19(1) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 and dismissed the same through the impugned judgment dated 17‑10‑2000. The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court on 19‑12‑2000 taking exception to the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal. It came up for hearing before this Court on 12‑1‑2001 and Mr. M.M. Aqil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was directed to secure the personal appearance of the petitioner on 2‑5‑2001. On the adjourned date i.e. 2‑5‑2001 the petitioner did not enter appearance and instead the learned counsel for the petitioner sought another adjournment for period of six, months which was not granted and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and leave was declined through an order dated 2‑5‑2001. This order of dismissal for non‑prosecution was, however, withdrawn on 3‑4‑2002 at the initiation of the petitioner and the petition was restored to its original number. Again the matter came up for hearing on 24‑9‑2002 whereby this Court gave a last opportunity to the petitioner for his appearance before this Court and the case was accordingly adjourned to 4‑10‑2002. Today the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 1‑10‑2002 addressed/sent to him by the petitioner from London whereby he has sought exemption from his personal appearance before this Court due to the ailment of his son. The petition accordingly was argued by the learned counsel at some length. He has argued that since there was a charge of corruption against the petitioner, as such a regular inquiry was essential in his case and the matter could not have been shortened adopting summary procedure. He has also stated that only one show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner and non‑issuance of second show‑cause notice has prejudiced the case of the petitioner and the impugned order in the circumstances cannot be maintained. He has placed reliance on the cases of Inayatullah Khan v. The Provincial Government, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar (1985 SCMR 1747), Basharat Ali v. Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore and another (1997 SCMR 1543), Nawab Khan and another v: Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1994 SC 222), Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Prime Minister of Pakistan and others (1996 PLC (C.S.) 868) and The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and another v. Muhammad Arif (1989 SCMR 852). Learned Deputy Attorney‑General appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. He has stated that the second show‑cause notice as claimed by the petitioner was not required in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A further argument has been advanced that the plea of second show‑cause notice was not even raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the Authorised Officer after applying his independent mind decided that no formal enquiry was needed in the facts, and circumstances of the case and decided to approach the matter in terms of Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules. The petitioner was specifically informed about the charges in detail and he was also informed the proposed penalty to be taken against him in case the charges levelled against him were proved. In the said show‑cause notice he was also informed that while replying to the same, he should intimate whether he wanted to be heard in person. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 23‑5‑1997 and towards the end of the same he also prayed for an opportunity of being heard in person enabling him to clarify the alleged charges levelled against him. However, he also mentioned that presently he was preoccupied with the medical treatment of his son in London (U.K.). On receipt of above reply the Establishment Secretary in his capacity as the Authorised Officer again asked the petitioner through his letter dated 8‑7‑1997 to avail the opportunity of personal hearing between 23‑7‑1997 to 31‑7‑1997. The petitioner did not deny the receipt of all these letters. However, all the times he deferred his appearance. As reflected from the preceding paragraphs he even demonstrated the same behaviour on non‑appearance before the Tribunal where the matter remained pending for more than two and a half years. This Court also provided him opportunity for appearance time and again but he did not avail of the same and in his letter dated 1‑10‑2002 he himself had sought exemption from personal appearance. It is to be appreciated that the case in hand was dealt with under Rule 5(1)(iii) of Rules and the question whether an enquiry is needed or not depends upon the nature of the charges. Here in this case the charges against the petitioner were apparent from the documents taken into consideration by the Authorised Officer. The legal requirements as already stated were fully complied with by the Authorised Officer and the petitioner was in full knowledge of the case against him. In the facts and circumstances of the present case when the matter was dealt with under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules as no enquiry was conducted and the show‑cause notice earlier issued to the petitioner was all pervasive, as such no second show‑cause notice as claimed by the petitioner was required in the present case. Even otherwise the plea of second show‑cause notice as claimed by the petitioner was not taken by him before the Tribunal. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are totally distinguishable and are not at all applicable to the case in hand. The same in the circumstances cannot be raised before this Court. It is pertinent to mention over here that' apart from the charge of misappropriating crores of rupees there is an allegation against the petitioner of having assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means of income. His reply in this regard was also deficient. For the last more than six years he is living in U.K. and has not visited Pakistan to answer the charges against him. Such like conduct on the part of the petitioner, being a civil servant, is quite unbecoming of a civil servant and cannot be approved on any ground. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any force is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.B.A./M‑716/S Petition dismissed.