1970 PLP 230 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner, who was Assistant Cereals Botanist, Agricultural Research Sub‑Station, Dadu, was charge‑sheeted under rule 4 (4) read with rule 3 (d) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 and asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. This notice was accompanied by state ment of grounds upon which action was proposed to be taken .against him. It was alleged against him that he was holding staunch anti‑Pakistan views and has not reconciled himself to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. That he has written objectionable letters to the State dignitaries containing objectionable material with the intention of unpatriotic and anti‑Pakistan feelings. It was further alleged against him that in November 1966, he paid an unauthorised visit to Iran via Quetta with the intention of watching the Political reaction there towards Pakistan and to get in touch with the Indian High Commission in that country, in order to convey information prejudicial to the national security of Pakistan. The statement also contained an allegation that the petitioner was a security risk and, therefore, his retention in Government service was prejudicial to the national security. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to Inquiry Committee, consisting of the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the Secretary in the Agriculture Department, Government of West Pakistan, constituted by the Governor to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner. On the 14th March 1969, the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter personally appeared before the Committee. He was confronted with all the evidence against him. He was found guilty and the Committee recommended that he should be dismissed from service. A second show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The Committee was not satisfied with his explanation and finally recommended that he should be dismissed from service. This recommendation was accepted by the Government of West Pakistan and the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 181 of 1969 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, inter alia, on the ground that the said Inquiry Committee did not conduct any enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. That he ,was not shown all the documents and material and his explana tion was not called. He also alleged that no witness was examined in his presence and that he was not supplied with a copy of the finding of the Enquiry Committee: The High Court In support of the petition, Mr. Iqbal Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had not written any letters to the state dignitaries and that he visited Iran with the permission of his superior Officers. He further contended that the enquiry held against the petitioner suffers from the principles of natural justice and the petitioner could not be dismissed on the basis of such enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The learned Judges of the High Court had called the record of the enquiry proceedings and examined all the material that was taken into consideration for passing an. adverse order against the petitioner. The record showed that no witness was examined in the case. The entire case against the petitioner was based on his own letters which he had written to the President of Pakistan. It was found that in letter dated the 22nd November 1966, addressed to the President at Barmoral Castle, Scotland, when he was guest of the Queen, the petitioner eulogized the role of the Indian Armed Forces during September War of 1965 and derided the Armed Forces of Pakistan. In another letter dated the 29th November 1966, addressed to one Manghirmalani, the retired Principal of Wales College, Sirinagar, he condemned the Ayub regime and remarked that people in Pakistan believe in "topping" and not in "tapping", meaning thereby that they just issue orders to others and do not help the officials in working together. It was further found that the petitioner had visited Iran unauthorisedly in violation of the Standing instructions in the Services and General Administration Department's Memo. No. SO‑XII‑1‑207/58 dated the 17th February 1959. These instructions laid down that no Government servant could visit a foreign country without first obtaining the permission of the Government in the administrative Department concerned. The record of the enquiry showed that the petitioner had admitted to be the author of the letters and made an attempt to explain the circumstances in which letters were written. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner and he was not condemned unheard. The petitioner was got examined by a Psychologist who reported that he was in perfect mental condition. After going through the judgment of the High Court, we are satisfied that the learned Judges were perfectly justified in holding that the enquiry against the petitioner was properly held and he was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The contention of Mr. Iqbal Kazi that the letters relied upon against the petitioner were never shown to him and his explanation was not taken cannot be accepted. We see no ground to disbelieved the record of the enquiry held against the petitioner. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the e record of the Inquiry Committee was not shown to the petition on the High Court. This contention is devoid of all force because a typed copy of the record was maintained on the file of the High Court and it was open to the petitioner to examine it. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed