1995 PLP 1001 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 16th January, 1995. MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.‑‑‑Petitioner, Muhammad Sharif Toor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18‑4‑1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby his appeal was rejected and the order dated 6‑5‑1993 passed by the Chairman, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Islamabad, regarding his reduction to lower rank from Inspector (BPS‑14) to F.I.O. (BPS‑11) was maintained.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 22‑1‑1992 one kilogram of heroin and 300 grams of Charas were recovered from notorious drug dealer, Sarwar alias Sarwari. F.I.R. in respect of the same was registered at Police Station Waris Khan, Rawalpindi. During interrogation Sarwar disclosed that he was being partonized by the petitioner and one Amjad Pervez, F.I.O. Thus, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Director (Intelligence) into the allegations. The Director submitted his report to the Chairman, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Islamabad, as under:‑‑ "(i) From the statements recorded, it has been proved beyond any doubt that Muhammad Sharif Toor, appellant had very close relations with drug dealer Sarwar, alias Sarwari, who is a very well‑known drug dealer Sarwar also runs a prostitution den in Rawalpindi. (ii) The statement of Sarwar is very clear about the involvement of Sharif Toor, appellant and Amjad Pervaiz Butt, Ex‑FIO in the drug business. (iii) Muhammad Sharif Toor, appellant had gone to Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi, to meet the accused Sarwar and threatened him of dire consequences if he divulged anything against him. Sharif Toor admitted this even before Regional Director, Islamabad. (iv) Muhammad Sharif Toor, appellant, has been running around in helping the Sarwar's release from the P.N.C.B., which can be clearly seen from the statements of Nadim Mir and others. (v) There is evidence to prove that Sharif Toor and Amjad Pervaiz Butt are involved in the theft of 350 grams of heroin from the Almirah and its sale to Sarwar."

3. Upon finding of the preliminary inquiry the Chairman, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, ordered departmental inquiry to be taken against the petitioner. He appointed Director Enforcement as authorised officer. The authorised officer served a charge‑sheet alongwith a statement of allegations against the petitioner on 13‑4‑1992. However, after due inquiry the authorised officer found the petitioner guilty for inefficiency and misconduct and recommended imposition of major penalty for reduction to lower post. On the recommendation of the authorised officer the Chairman, P.N.C.B. in the capacity as Authority passed the order for his reduction to lower post from Inspector (BPS‑14) to F.I.O. (BPS‑11) on 6‑5‑1993. He filed a departmental appeal which was rejected on 31‑1‑1994. Against the above-said order the petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, who too rejected it on 18‑4‑1994. Hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously stressed that on same allegations Amjad Pervaiz Butt, who was removed from service by the Authority, was reinstated in service on 11‑7‑1994 by Service Tribunal. Unfortunately, the appeal of the petitioner was heard by another Bench in spite of all his efforts to be heard by the same Bench. The learned counsel further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner and Amjad Pervaiz Butt were the same. Hence appeal of the petitioner aught to have been accepted by the Tribunal. It may be pointed out that the Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal, had not passed any order regarding hearing of the appeal of the petitioner and Amjad Pervaiz Butt by the same Bench. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any such objection before the Tribunal when his appeal was being heard. It may further be observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are quite distinguishable from that levelled against Amjad Pervaiz Butt. It is also noteworthy that Amjad Pervaiz Butt was not exonerated from the charges by the Service Tribunal, while ordering his reinstatement in service. The Tribunal stopped his three increments. In such view of the fact the case of the petitioner cannot be said to have been treated differently than that of Amjad Pervaiz Butt's. We have gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment. There is nothing wrong with them. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Court. Besides, there is no substance in the petition. Accordingly the leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑2247/S Leave refused.