2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 27.06.2016 (impugned judgment), through which an Appeal bearing No.1988 (R)CS of 2015 filed by him against an order of the departmental authority compulsorily retiring him from service was dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this lis are that the petitioner, who while working as a Sepoy in the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Rawalpindi, was charged with the allegations of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption. According to the charge sheet, dated 18.03.2015, it was reported by the Deputy Collector Customs (AB) BBI Airport, Islamabad that a video clip regarding extortion of money by the petitioner had been uploaded on the social media. The clip showed that a passenger approached him for having his baggage scanned by the ASF. After some conversation, the passenger inquired if it was necessary to get the baggage opened/checked. The petitioner demanded illegal gratification in the sum of pound sterling 10 in exchange for clearing the baggage unchecked. The passenger decided to get his baggage checked and did not pay the demanded amount. A video clip of the entire incident together with the conversation between the passenger and the petitioner was recorded. It was uploaded on the social media which was brought to the attention of the concerned authorities who issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the matter. The inquiry officer summoned the petitioner who filed his written statement. He admitted that the person shown in the video was him. However, denied that the voice in the recording was his. He also denied having taken any money from the passenger.

3. The inquiry officer came to the conclusion that demand of bribe was quite evident from the video clip and that his claim that the voice in the video was not his was baseless. She concluded that audio recording coincided with his lip movement in the video recording and the accent of the petitioner was peculiar enough to make an easy comparison with his actual voice. As far as receipt of bribe from the passenger is concerned, the inquiry officer found that the clip did not establish payment of any bribe. On conclusion of the inquiry, it was recommended that the petitioner be proceeded against departmentally under Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 (the Rules, 1973) on the charges of misconduct and corruption, as defined under Rule 3(b) and (c) of the Rules, 1973.

4. On receipt of the recommendation of the inquiry officer, the authorized officer issued a show-cause notice, which was responded to by the petitioner. He was also granted a personal hearing. In his reply as well as personal hearing, the petitioner reiterated the same defence as taken by him before the inquiry officer. The authorized officer proceeded to recommend to the competent authority that major penalty of dismissal from service may be imposed on the petitioner.

5. The competent authority also granted personal hearing to the petitioner and proceeded to impose major penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Rules, 1973. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the appellate authority which converted the major penalty of "dismissal from service" into major penalty of "compulsory retirement".

6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal by way of an appeal under section 4 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which was dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for grant of leave to appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the inquiry officer is vague and unclear which is evident from the fact that it refers to "deliberations of a committee" which had decided to recommend various steps including proceeding against the petitioner under rule 4 of the Rules, 1973. He maintains that no such committee was ever constituted and if at all any such committee was constituted, it never undertook any proceedings. He further submits that the findings of the inquiry officer that video clip as well as the sound recording was clear were patently incorrect and did not take into account that by use of modern technology, it is possible to add a sound track to a video clip which would make it look real. He finally maintains that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence and a warning or at best, withholding of a few increments or imposition of minor penalty would have been sufficient. Learned counsel further submits that a detailed inquiry was not held therefore major penalty could not be imposed on the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-department who has been assisted by a departmental representative submits that the video clip uploaded on the social media was accessible to people all over the world which had brought a bad name to the department as well as the country. He further submits that the inquiry officer as well as other officials who work in the same department including the Authorized Officer come across the petitioner during performance of their official functions recognized his voice in the audio recording on account of its peculiar accent and the lip movements which coincided with the video recording.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Vide order dated 10.02.2017, we had directed the respondent-department to produce videos and other footage of the incident. In pursuance whereof, the department brought a video clip of the incident as well as CCTV footage and we played the same on multimedia in Court. CDs of the same were also placed on record, which have been carefully examined by us.

10. There is no cavil with the argument that ordinarily major penalty cannot be imposed unless a detailed inquiry is conducted. However, this is not an absolute rule. Where sufficient evidence is available on record, a detailed inquiry can be dispensed with and after confronting the delinquent official with the available evidence and providing him an opportunity to explain his position, the inquiry officer can record findings and make his recommendations. In the present case, the video clip as well as the CCTV footage was available and the same was shown to the petitioner who admitted that he featured in the said video. The only defence taken by the petitioner was that the voice in the video clip was not his. The inquiry officer found that the sound in the video clip was the voice of the petitioner because of its peculiar accent and lip movements which coincided with the sound recording.

11. We have also carefully watched the video clip and the sound recording in Chambers and found that the audio recording clearly corresponds with the lip movements of the petitioner in the video clip. We have not found any possibility of a voiceover or the video clip having been dubbed subsequently. Even otherwise, we find no reason why anybody in the department or the passenger who apparently met him for a few minutes would involve and frame the petitioner in this manner.

12. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence regarding receipt of illegal gratification and therefore he could not have been punished is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner was performing duties in a sensitive position and was required to maintain a high level of discipline. The fact that he was willing to let baggage of a passenger pass through security without being checked and had demanded illegal gratification for the same is sufficient to establish misconduct. In this day and age when threat of terrorism and smuggling of narcotics is at an all time high, a heavy responsibility lies on the law enforcement agencies and functionaries of the Customs department to ensure that security arrangements as well as detection procedures and protocols are strictly followed and enforced. Any carelessness or dereliction of duty, lapse or intentional grant of favour to any passenger could lead to disastrous consequences. Countries all over the world depend on each other to curb the threat of terrorism and smuggling. The authorities at the country of destination must have confidence that our law enforcement agencies are efficient, responsible, vigilant and incorruptible and would not knowingly let any prohibited items be carried in any passenger's baggage. If such confidence is lost, even innocent passengers would have to suffer inconvenience and hardship when they reach the countries of destination at the hands of law enforcement agencies charged with the responsibility to prevent prohibited items being carried into their countries.

13. The video clip in question was not only recorded but uploaded on the social media. It was accessible to all and sundry not only locally but internationally. Screen shots of the video showing the petitioner along with a detailed story about the incident was also prominently covered in the British Press including Daily Mirror of March 08, 2015. It clearly brought a bad name to the country as well as the concerned department. Any leniency shown in dealing with such acts would not only send the wrong message to other functionaries of the department but would amount to condoning bribery and corruption in our system with disastrous consequences.

14. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case although the competent authority had rightly imposed major penalty of dismissal from service, the appellate authority, possibly on compassionate grounds, converted the major penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that all relevant factors have been examined and dealt with by the appellate authority as well as the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal recorded valid and cogent reason for its judgment which requires no further interference by this Court.

15. For reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/H-7/SC Petition dismissed.