2003 SCMR 215 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 13‑2‑2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No.382(R)C.S/2000 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was partly accepted and penalty of removal from service by the authority was modified to reduction to lower rank for a period of one year and was reinstated in service with all back benefits.

2. Leave to appeal was granted in the case to consider the contention 1 hat in the circumstances of the case the maintenance of the order of penalty vas justified in law or not.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant was an Officer belonging to the Audit and Accounts Group of the Central Superior Services of Pakistan, and was posted as Deputy Controller Military Accounts, Rawalpindi Command, Rawalpindi. At the relevant time, he was serving as Deputy Director (MIS) in the office of the Director General (MIS), Islamabad, when a charge‑sheet dated 16‑12‑1998 was served upon him by the Auditor General of Pakistan, Islamabad (the Authorized Officer) and departmental proceedings initiated against him on the following charges:‑ "(A) As per press report published in the Urdu daily 'Khabrain' dated 28‑1‑1998, he abducted Miss Tahmina Saeed and took her in the Armoured Corps Officers Mess, Rawalpindi. He kept her in the Mess from 17 to 25th January, 1998. He falsely stated before the authorities of the Mess that she was his wife. They left the Mess without intimating the Mess Authorities on the night of 25/26 January, 1998. " 4 Thus it was the above mentioned acts of omission and commission being acts and conduct prejudicial to good order of service discipline and contrary to Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and also unbecoming of an officer, tantamount to 'misconduct' as defined in rule 2(4) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, that rendered him liable to be punished under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, which involve imposition of one or more of the penalties including the one of "Dismissal from Service" as ,prescribed under rule 4 of the said Rules.

5. The appellant accordingly submitted reply to the charge‑sheet whereafter the inquiry commenced against him and concluded on 9‑7‑1999. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Authorized Officer came to the conclusion that the above mentioned charges were proved against the appellant and resultantly show‑cause notice dated 9‑9‑1999 was issued to him to which he replied on 23‑9‑1999. But being dissatisfied with the reply, the Authorized Officer recommended the imposition of major penalty of "Reduction to a lower post, i.e. Assistant Accountant General/equivalent to BPS‑17, for a period of two years'. The Authority, however. imposed still severe penalty of (removal from service) which was implemented 'on 26‑2‑2000.

6. On 25‑3‑2000 appellant preferred departmental appeal to the president of Pakistan but the same was not disposed of and was pending, therefore, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal.

7. We have heard Mr.. Abid Hassan Minto, learned Advocate Supreme court for the appellant and Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned D.A.G. for the respondents and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the are in minute particulars.

8. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant mainly contended that the entire departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the news published in Urdu daily 'Khabrain' dated 28‑1‑1988. According to which, it was alleged that he had abducted Miss Tahmina Saeed and kept her in the Armoured Corps Officers Mess, Rawalpindi, from 7 to 25th January, 1998 impersonating her as his wife. On the basis of such Press‑clipping, a criminal case was registered against the appellant for an offence under sections 10 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sections 411 and 337, P.P.C. According to him, the name of the appellant was initially incorporated in Column No.2 of the challan but was later on booked to face trial. He was, however, acquitted under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, on 15‑1‑2000 mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce and examine victim P.W. Miss Tahmina Saeed. P.W. Misbah Awan, complainant Saeed Ahmad and P.W. Riaz Sultan as they had left the country and proceeded abroad. In the above circumstances, learned Advocate Supreme Court contended that the main charges levelled in the criminal case about taking Miss Tahmina Saeed to the Armoured Corps Officers Mess. Rawalpindi, and staying with her there from 17‑1‑1998 to 25‑1‑1998 could not be established on record. Even the Visitors‑Register of concerned Mess did not contain the concerned entry. He lastly contended that Authorized Officer too did not find appellant guilty of the above charges but recommended penalty of reduction to lower post in Basic Pay Scale 17 for a period of two years without any material and justification. Taking into consideration the above factors, learned Federal Service Tribunal further reduced the penalty and confirmed the reduction of lower grade for one year only.

9. We have gone through the impugned judgment and are unable to find any express findings recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal against the appellant justifying the penalty. Moreover, it is also established from the record that the charges of abduction, kidnapping etc. ultimately culminated in honourable acquittal of the appellant by the competent Court of law in above mentioned criminal case. Admittedly, Reporter, Publisher or Editor of the Urdu daily ' Khabrain' were neither examined in the inquiry proceedings nor in the criminal case which lead to believe that the entire proceedings were initiated falsely with certain motive against the appellant. 1.0. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is reinstated in original grade in BS‑18 with all back benefits with no orders as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z‑119/S Appeal allowed.