2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 16‑1‑1998 whereby se[vice appeal of the petitioner challenging the order of Departmental Authority dismissing him from service, was dismissed and the order of Departmental Authority was upheld.

2. The petitioner was proceeded in a Departmental enquiry on the allegation that on 21‑4‑1997 during office hours he stripped himself naked in the office premises in front of consumers which constituted gross misconduct in terms of Rules of Service for Subordinate Staff. The Enquiry Officer examined number of persons on the above charge and held the petitioner guilty of the charge vide report, dated 24‑6‑1997. On basis of the report of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

3. After exhausting departmental remedy, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal and on the question of validity of Departmental enquiry the learned Tribunal came to the following conclusion while dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner:‑‑ "As far as becoming naked is concerned by stripping off clothes, there is no dispute about it because the appellant has also acknowledged that he did it under distress because he was attacked by a swarm of bees. According to him some of them entered in clothes. To get rid of them, there was no alternative but to strip off the clothes. The objection like the fact that no eye‑witnesses were produced, loses its relevance when the appellant himself accepted that he did take off his clothes. An objection has also been raised that the inquiry report has not been written by the Inquiry Officer but somebody else. Actually this report is a record of proceedings of inquiry in which the questions raised by the Inquiry Officer and the answers given by the appellant have been considered. Mere writing of an inquiry report in the hand of somebody else, does not make it legally defective in any way: In almost all enquiries the enquiry is made by the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry report is typed by a subordinate. The appellant has not been able to give any cogent reasons that it has adversely affected his right of defence in any way. A medical certificate has been produced which was obtained .by visiting the hospital on the same day as that of occurrence of the incident. This certificate only writes 'bite by insect' and recommends rest for one day. It is rather, strange that when a person is attacked by a swarm of bees, the result is only 'insect bite' which conveys as if the appellant has been bitten by a single bee. Similarly the claim of the appellant that ‑he had to take off clothes because some bees had entered into the clothes is also strange and unbelievable because if somebody is attacked by a swarm or bees, then the reflect action is to cover as much of the body with clothes as possible and not to strip off.

5. After considering all these things, we are of the opinion that stripping off by the appellant during office hours stands proved. It is misconduct of serious nature and cannot be condoned. As a result the dismissal of the appellant from service is upheld. The appeal stands rejected." We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The learned counsel has contended that there was no direct evidence available before the Enquiry Officer regarding petitioner's having stripped off and becoming naked before the consumers. The learned counsel that there was no reliable evidence to hold that the petitioner has been guilty of gross misconduct as held by the departmental authority also contends it. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner besides being in the nature of individual grievance and raising no question of law of public importance, were duly considered and repelled by the learned Tribunal. The order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to justify our interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. No case for interference with the judgment of the Service Tribunal is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. M. B. A./A‑6/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed