1989SCMR617 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a Senior Engineer seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the rejection of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal by order dated 7‑4‑1982.

2. The petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the WAPDA. He earned promotion as Senior Engineer in January, 1975. He was suspended from service on 26th October, 1977 and was charge‑sheeted under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975. He replied to the charge‑sheet and was heard by the Inquiry Officer on 7‑1‑1978. On 11‑2‑1978 new Efficiency and Discipline Rules were enforced by WAPDA where under the Inquiry proceedings were transferred to another Inquiry Officer who completed the proceedings, submitted the report whereupon by an order dated 23‑8‑1978 he was removed from the service. He appealed without success. He approached the Tribunal but failed there too.

3. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that the inquiry initiated under 1975 Efficiency and Discipline Rules should have been continued under those rules and not conducted under 1978 rules. In this manner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been denied one opportunity of show‑cause notice which had to be given immediately before imposing the major penalty of removal from service. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N. W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary (P LD 1981 S C 176) such an opportunity was necessary and should have been given to the petitioner. Another ground taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even the Rules of 1978 envisage the application of mind by two authorities, one the authority competent to impose minor penalty and next the authority competent to impose the major penalty where the major penalty is to be inflicted and not minor penalty. In this case the report of the Inquiry Officer went straight to the authority competent to inflict major penalty and he handed it down without that sifting which was provided for in the Rules.

4. We have gone through the proceedings and the view taken of these submissions by the Service Tribunal. The Efficiency and Discipline Rules being the rules regulating the procedure for the conduct of the Inquiry had to take over but the substantive provision of it which prescribed the penalties held the field. It is not contended that the penalties under the new rules were in any manner different from those under the superseded Rules. The procedural provisions take effect and govern the pending proceedings except to the extent that some vested right is involved. There could possibly be no vested right in the second show cause notice, as is claimed by the petitioner in view of Abdul Latif Niazi v. Government of West Pakistan (P L b 1967 S C 62).

5. The case of Syed Mir Muhammad had peculiar features of its own and unless actual prejudice is shown, the benefit of a second show‑cause notice cannot be claimed as was held by this Court in Chairman, Employees' Old‑age Benefit Institution and others v. M.Ismail Munawar (1984 S C M R 143). The Rules make no provision for such a notice.

6. The Tribunal has found as a fact that a full and complete hearing was afforded to the petitioner at all stages of the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was assisted by Technical Officers. There could, therefore, possibly be no prejudice caused to the petitioner.

7. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that two competent authorities should have necessarily dealt with the case of the petitioner and not one, is an inferential submission, not borne out from 1978 Efficiency and Discipline Rules.

8. We find that no question of law of public importance arises in the case and hence leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑690/S l . Leave to appeal refused.