1998 PLP 1565 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.

This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 18-10-1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred td as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 43(L) of 1993 filed by the appellant against the imposition of major penalty of 'reduction to lower stage in the existing time scale' for a period of one year, dismissing the same. The brief facts are that at the relevant time the appellant was working as the Deputy Director (T&G) G.S.C., WAPDA, Rawalpindi. He was suspended by order dated 12-4-1989. It appears that he was served with charge-sheet containing 6 charges. It seems that after preliminary inquiry regular inquiry was instituted and an Inquiry Committee headed by Abdul Sattar and after his transfer by Shaukat Ali Shah inquired into the charges and found the appellant not guilty. After that a second Inquiry Committee headed by Abdul Hakeem Kundi was constituted which also inquired into the same charges and recorded its findings on the above six charges. The same have been reproduced in para. 5 of the judgment under appeal. As a result of the above finding the aforesaid major penalty was imposed on .the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal which was partially accepted and the penalty was substituted by withholding of one increment without future effect. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider whether the finding given by the Tribunal in the case of 'one Iqbal Jan regarding invalidity and mala fide nature of the above inquiries vindicates the stand of the appellant and the penalty imposed upon him merits to be quashed. In support of-the above appeal Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant was proceeded with the above departmental inquiry alongwith two other employees and one of them was lqbal Jan Who filed Appeal No. 103/R of 1993 before the Tribunal against the imposition of penalty as a result of the above inquiries which was allowed by the Tribunal through the judgment dated 18-9-1993 (at pages 118 to 123 of the paper book), in which it was found that the above inquiries were mala fide. According to him, in view of the above finding the above major penalty imposed upon the appellant cannot be sustained. His second submission was that in any case even according to the finding of the second Inquiry Committee reproduced at page 5 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant has not been found guilty of any charge. It seems that in respect of charges Nos. 1, 4 and 5 the Inquiry Committee exonerated the appellant, whereas -in respect of charges Nos. 2, 3 and 6 the Inquiry Committee made the following remarks: - Charge No. 2 : The accused officer likewise on the benefit of doubt is pleaded not guilty. Charge No. 3 : ...........................................though DD (T & I) Pindi should have been vigilant enough. Charge No. 6 : ...................................................So DD ( T & I) by dint of benefit of doubt pleads not guilty. From the above-quoted extracts of the relevant portion of the above charges) Nos. 2, 3 and 6, it is evident that there is no clear-cut finding recorded by the Inquiry Committee that factually the appellant was guilty of the above charges. In our view, the imposition of the above major penalty was not warranted on the basis of the above finding. Additionally it is not understandable as to how the Tribunal after having found in its aforesaid judgment dated 18-9-1993 in the appeal filed by Iqbal Jan (Appeal No. 103/R of 1993) that the above inquiry was not bona fide could have sustained the above imposition of major penalty against the appellant who was also inquired into by the same Inquiry Committees: We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and also of the department. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./S-71/S Appeal accepted.