1990SCMR1548 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Supreme Court during course of proceedings considered that punishment of removal from service awarded to civil servant appeared to be excessive and ends of justice could have been served by reprimanding or administering a warning to civil servant for being more careful in future‑‑‑Civil servant also expressed his profound regrets for his improper conduct and assured that his conduct in future would be exemplary, if given a further chance to serve‑‑‑In deference to Supreme Court's observations, Competent Authority decided to review and recall order of removal from service passed against civil servant and decided to substitute that order with an order of warning‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed review petition setting aside order of removal passed against civil servant, directing his reinstatement in service, without any consequential relief. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M.A. Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney‑General and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1989. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑‑This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 12‑10‑1985. The petitioner, who is a young man, joined the Federal Investigation Agency in March, 1972, but only a month thereafter while still under training mis-conducted himself in that he went to the office of the District Education Officer (Women Wing) Rawalpindi and misbehaved with the officials on duty there to give vent to his feelings on account of the transfer of his sister Miss Nasim Akhtar from the Government Girls High School, Rawalpindi. This misconduct resulted in the Director‑General of the F.I.A's ordering his removal from service, vide order dated 21‑3‑1983. This order was challenged by an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without success. The petition for leave to appeal against this order was dismissed by this Court on 12‑10‑1985. Hence this petition for review. In support of the review petition it was contended that whereas the action against the petitioner had ostensibly been taken under the shorter procedure prescribed in the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, but, in fact, the order was passed on an ex parte inquiry, described as a "probe", in which the petitioner was not associated and hence the order was liable to be set aside on this ground. As this aspect of the matter had been overlooked in the earlier order of this Court, this was a fit case for review. The review petition was, accordingly, admitted and notice issued to the respondent. In the course of the proceedings before us we considered that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner appeared to be excessive in the circumstances of the case and the ends of justice could have been served by reprimanding or administering a warning to the petitioner for being more careful in future. The petitioner also expressed his profound regrets for his improper conduct and assured that his conduct in the future would be exemplary, if given a further chance to serve in it. In view of the above, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General of Pakistan appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that in deference to the observations of this Court the competent authority had decided to review and recall the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner and had decided to substitute that order with an order of warning. It was, accordingly, withdrawing the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner and reinstating him into service without consequential benefits. In view of the foregoing, we would allow this review petition. The order of removal passed against the petitioner dated 21‑3‑1983 shall be set aside and; the petitioner reinstated into service, but not entitled to any consequential benefits. The review petition is disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./J‑65/S Review petition allowed.