2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7‑3‑2003 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, at Karachi, (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby the order of dismissal of the respondent was modified into compulsory retirement.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the instant petition are that the respondent joined the petitioner's Organization as L.D.C. in 1967 and over the years was promoted as District Manager and in the year, 1988 while he was posted at Karachi, was called upon to explain the position in respect of false verification reports of 2,25 loan cases. He denied the charges vide his reply dated 15‑4‑1999. Whereafter, on 10‑10‑1998, the respondent was issued a show‑cause notice with the allegations that while he was posted as District Manager, Nawabshah, had carried out site inspections in 225 investment cases and also reported false inspection reports and on the basis of which the investments in 91 cases were released whereas the plots were found open, which amounted to misconduct. He was also charged with the preparing of false inspection reports which resulted in release of investments in 134 cases wherein the construction was found at a level which could not qualify for the release of investment instalments. He submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet, denying the allegations and reiterated his stance that he had correctly conducted the inspections. Thereafter the matter was enquired into by the Inquiry Committee and on the basis of its findings a show‑cause notice dated 25‑3‑1999 was issued against the respondent and was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 24‑4‑1999. However, he was found guilty of misconduct and was ultimately dismissed from service on 8‑5‑1999.

3. We have heard Mr. M. Aqil Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Shahid Hassan Khan respondent in person and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

4. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was rightly found guilty of committing irregularities which were fully established in full‑fledged inquiry conducted against him. According to him, he was afforded full opportunity to rebut the allegations and to produce defence and was allowed full access to the record so much so he cross examined the witnesses, namely, Sheikh Ismail and Rana M. Shafiq but could not succeed. He contended that due to false verification reports, the petitioner‑‑Corporation suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2.90 million. No discrimination of any sort was made with the respondent, as his case was distinguishable from that of other co‑accused who were exonerated on the basis that their involvement was not proved. To further substantiate his case, the learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of this Court reported as Water and Power Development Authority v. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali PLD 1988 SC 693 and WAPDA, Lahore and 2 others v. Manzoor Ahmad Arif 1994 SCMR 1042.

5. On the other side, the respondent who appeared in person, controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that he was involved in the case falsely as he had pointed out the malpractices of an Ex‑Chairman of petitioner‑Corporation. He also reported the matter to the Headquarter that the construction of the houses was highly damaged and destroyed due to heavy rain and the people had stolen away the material from the site' of the construction about which several F.I.Rs. were registered at Police Station, Daur, District Nawabshah. He attacked upon the inquiry and argued that it was not conducted in proper manner and no, opportunity of leading defence in rebuttal of allegations was allowed to him. He was discriminated in the treatment as the others with similar allegations were imposed lesser penalty whereas he was awarded penalty of dismissal from service. The Inquiry Officer proved only 13 cases against him out of which three were inspected by one Noor Muhammad and he himself jointly. In support of his contention he had produced identical judgments decided by the Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 372(R) and 1055(x) of 1999 wherein the order of dismissal was modified into compulsory retirement.

6. The finding of the Tribunal modifying the order of dismissal of respondent into compulsory retirement in exercise of powers under section 5(1) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in our opinion, is based on sound reasoning as the main ground which weighed with the Tribunal was an identical case of M. Naseem Akhtar v. H.B.F.C., Nawabshah (decided an Appeal No. 1055 (K) of 1999) whereby the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. Moreover, the respondent has served the petitioner‑Corporation for a period of about 32 years, as such, in our opinion, the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and that of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice The case‑law referred (supra) is on different facts and circumstances and have got no bearing with the case in hand.

7. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.B.A./H‑1/S Petition dismissed