1996SCMR462 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proceedings against civil servant being departmental inquiry, officers entrusted therewith had special knowledge of the rules and practice; prevalent in the department and were in a better position to find out alleged misconduct‑‑‑Report of U.S. Custom's Authorities who had no ill‑will against civil servant based on inspection of consignments had presumption of correctness attached thereto, which stood unrebutted‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and SIi. Masood Akhtar; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Jamil Butt, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 6‑7‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.23(L)/92 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2‑9‑1991 of the respondent, dismissing him from service, was partly accepted and the order of dismissal was converted into removal from service. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner being Inspector Customs was posted in the Export Section of Lahore Airport and in that capacity examined the consignments presented by the exporters, through Customs Clearing Agents under the Shipping Bills for exporting the goods to U.S.A. under claim for rebate. The exporter had declared in the bill of export that the said consignment consisted of surgical instruments etc. and he examined 20 % of the goods from each of the consignments as reported on the relevant shipping bills and gave the report "Inspected, 98 cartons and examined 20% in the presence of C.A. and found to contain surgical instruments made of S.S. as per invoice". An inquiry through U.S. Customs revealed that the said consignment consisted surgical instruments, footballs etc., in muchless quantities and even less than 20% quantity which is reported to have been examined by him. The petitioner was found to have committed fraud and acted in a manner prejudicial and detrimental to national exchequer and gave a report which was incorrect and misleading. He was accordingly charge‑sheeted. The petitioner denied the allegation levelled in the charge‑sheet. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, 'who found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service vide order dated 2‑9‑1991. His departmental appeal having not responded to, appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was filed which was disposed of through the impugned judgment. We have heard Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that no evidence was recorded in the case to establish the guilt of the accused/petitioner and his connivance with the exporters. He also submitted that the charge‑sheet was framed after loss of much time; that the U.S. Customs report was nor proved through to evidence of any officer of their department; that the inquiry conducted was not independent; that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner; and that discrimination had been made in the award of sentence to the petitioner and his immediate officer the Deputy Superintendent. We are afraid, the contentions have no force. It was a departmental inquiry and the officers entrusted with the .wine had special knowledge of the rules and practice prevalent in the department and were in a better position to find out the alleged misconduct. The report of the U.S. Custom$ Authorities, who had no ill‑will against the petitioner, based on inspection of the consignments, had presumption of correctness attached to it which stood unrebutted. We do not find any legal flaw in the report of the Enquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and the order of the Authority based thereon. The 'impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is well‑reasoned and is not open to interference at this stage. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. A.A.%M‑2138/S ??????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.