2000 PLP 1387 (SCMR)

CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.

The background in which this appeal, with leave of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution has arisen is that the appellant was working as Field Investigating Officer when, as a consequence of a raid conducted by Director (Intelligence), Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, PNCB for short, Islamabad, he was departmentally proceeded against. As he could not account for the excess of case property regarding 4 Kgs. of Charas and 50 grams of heroin found in his cupboard on 30-5-1991, he was suspended and charge-sheeted and resultantly dismissed from service on 2-2-1992 His departmental appeal, dated-25-2-1992 was rejected on 29-5-1993 He made Appeal No.202(L) of 1993, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act (No.LXX of 1973), on 26-6-1993 before the Federal Service Tribunal. The same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 1-2-1994, penultimate paragraph whereof reads thus:-- "

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It appears that all procedural formalities under the relevant rules have been observed in this case. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet on 20-7-1991 alongwith the statement of allegations. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who found (sic) detailed inquiry into the matter. He was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant was then served with a final show-cause notice, dated 15-12-1991. An opportunity of personal hearing was also given to him by the Authorised Officer, before forwarding the case of the appellant to the Authority for imposition of a penalty on him. We see nothing wrong with the procedure adopted by the competent Authority and it is not possible to say that he was denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself against the proposed action. In this view of the matter, we hold there has been no miscarriage of justice, as would warrant cancellation of the order of dismissal."

2. Para.3 of leave grant order, dated 18-7-1995 reads thus:-- "Mr. M. Saleem Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the raid was conducted in absence of the petitioner during midnight hours, besides, proper enquiry as contemplated under the Rules was conducted against him which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Possession of such small quantity of contraband material from the cupboard of the petitioner was not so serious as to entail in dismissal of his service. There is substance in his contention. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly."

3. We have heard Mr. M. Saleem Chaudhry, Advocate for the appellant and also Mian Tariq Mahmood learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of the respondent-Authorities. With the help of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer the relevant material has also been perused. Mr. M. Saleem Chaudhry reiterated the two-fold contention noticed in the leave grant order, dated 18-7-1995 that raid having been conducted during the absence of the appellant and no proper inquiry having preceded appellant's dismissal from service on 2-2-1992, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with back benefits. According to him, the quantity of Charas and heroin i.e. 4 Kgs. and 50 grams respectively, is too small to be noticed for the purposes of visiting the appellant with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service: Moreso, when all concerned had agreed that the drugs could be part of a test purchase endeavour. He has very heavily relied upon the affirmative answers given to his cross questions by P.Ws. Muhammad Afzal Asim, Tanvir Hussain Gilani, Mehmood Ahmed Butt and Syed Israr Hussain, Director (Intelligence). The excerpts from record are available at page 99 of the Paper Book and the same read as under:-- The precise plea is that if the appellant was having seisin of 4 Kg-. of Charas and 50 grams of heroin in the cupboard at his place of work as Field Investigating Officer with a view to successfully conducting raids for nabbing traffickers and drug paddlers as an official from P.N.C.P., Lahore, he could not be punished for alleged misconduct and corruption.

4. Mr. Mian Tariq Mahmood, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has controverted the pleas raised by the Teamed counsel for the appellant and submitted that in the absence of any mala fides on the part of the raiding party which had, in fact, proceeded from Islamabad to Lahore for the purposes of conducting raid t 30-5-1991 in the Regional Office, Lahore without discrimination against all the employees working there, all proceedings resulting in appellant's dismissal from service, rejection of his departmental appeal and appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, cannot be reversed because they do not suffer from any taint whatsoever, at all levels.

5. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. The detailed inquiry, which preceded the conclusion of departmental proceedings against the appellant, has not been shown to be deficient on the touchstone of the rules applicable in the matter. The imposition of the punishment on the appellant in the light of the inquiry report and recommendations of the Authorised Officer who had also granted personal hearing to him, also falls in the same category. It was rightly pleaded by the learned Law Officer on behalf of the respondent-Authorities that the very fact of the raiding party originating at Islamabad and conducting raid for the entire staff working at Regional Office, Lahore must certainly run counter to the allegations of any mala fides both, in law and on facts. The position in which the appellant finds himself today is of his own creation. Throughout the proceedings he did not even so much as deny the availability of 4 Kgs. of Charas and 50 grams of heroin in excess of the accounted for quantities i.e. case property of the drugs in question. The allegations against him that he failed to deposit the same in 'Malkhana, which was essential under the rules, was also not denied by the appellant who, as a matter of fact, proceeded with making such deposit in the 'Malkhana , afterwards.

6. This appeal is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. So be it. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./H-11/S Appeal dismissed.