1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑Facts of the case are that the appellant, inducted as Corporate Manager Accounts in Pay Group IX i.e. Rs.2300‑150‑3500) by order, dated 28‑5‑1987 with a direction to report for duty to the Zonal Manager, Civil Aviation Authority, Peshawar Airport, on or before 22‑7‑1987 provided the terms and conditions as spelled out in the appointment order were acceptable to him. He accepted the same and took over the charge on 3‑8‑1987 (Annexure E at page 15) and by the time of his removal from service vide impugned order, dated 12‑8‑1997 he appears to have rendered about ten years' service.

2. The appellant was re‑posted at Peshawar Airport since 24‑10‑1992 and was matured for retransfer elsewhere after completion of usual tenure of three years' posting at a station vide Annexure 'R‑2' but the immediate cause of his transfer to Karachi was his direct altercation, (in presence of a Zonal Manager), namely Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Chief Engineer, N.‑W.F.P., over sanction of some bills which fact stands admitted by either party.

3. The competent Authority, when seized of the matter transferred the appellant from Peshawar to Karachi by a telex order, dated 6‑12‑1995 (Annexure 'A') which reads:‑‑ "Mr. Asadullah (CCA/0975) Senior Accounts Officer is transferred from the office of ZM (N. ‑W. F . P.) Peshawar to H.Q.C.A.A. with immediate effect. The officer be relieved and directed to report to GM Personnel for his further deployment. Sanction is hereby accorded for grant of TA/DA etc. to officer as admissible under ‑C.A.A. Service Regulations. Relieving/Joining dates be confirmed."

4. The appellant contends that his transfer to Karachi was mala fide and hence unwarranted but respondents hold that it was legal, just and proper duly warranted by the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. This aspect of the matter will be looked into hereinafter in detail.

5. The appellant did not relinquish charge till he was suspended by the Administration on 12‑2‑1996. His contention falls to the grounds when he complains about non‑payment of TA/DA for the reason that the telex order, dated 6‑12‑1995 about his transfer from Peshawar to Karachi contains a reference to the sanction of TA/DA and so is the case of a second contention that he was directed/advised by the Director Finance, Headquarters, "to hold the charge till further instructions" vide "Annexure B‑1" but it does not read like that as alleged. It is simply a letter by the appellant containing a statement that "he has been directed to hold on the charge" specially when one finds that the Director Finance, Karachi, by a message, dated 1‑12‑1996 has directed the appellant to hand ‑over charge immediately with a copy to the Zonal Manager, Peshawar Airport, for information vide Annexure 'R‑7' but despite this he relinquished/handed over the charge reluctantly for the reasons that the cash handling documents such as Cheque Book etc. obtained from his immediate subordinate, Accounts Assistant, were deposited in the Bank and thereby created an "Administrative Inconvenience" for all concerned. New Cheque Books and other record had to be obtained, per force, for official use as per his statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer with reference to his answer to Question No.9. He stated:‑ "I claim to hold charge to‑date except for the high handedness of the Authority." CHARGE SHEET:‑‑

6. Ordinarily an accused official is supposed to give parawise reply to the charge‑sheet but in the instant case the appellant failed to do so for the reason best known to him. The charge‑sheet leads:‑‑ "(1) You, Mr. Asadullah (CAA/0975‑5687/Accts.), Senior Accounts Officer, (PG‑9) are hereby charged as under:‑‑ (a) You were transferred from Peshawar Airport to H.Q. C.A.A. vide telex of even reference, dated 6th December, 1995 and relieved from Peshawar Airport vide Zonal Manager (N.‑W.F.P.) letter No.ZMP/4729/87/Admin‑PF/86 dated 28th December, 1995 with immediate effect with direction to report at Headquarters C.A.A. after availing normal joining time. You disobeyed the abovementioned lawful order and refused to hand over the charge of the post to the relieving officer. (b) Consequently you were suspended from service by the Competent Authority w.e.f. 12th February, 1996. Even after suspension you, have failed to hand over the charge to the relieving officer. (2) The above act/omission on your part amounts to misconduct under Regulation 7.02(d)(i) and (iii) of CAA Service Regulations. (3) You Mr. Asadullah are hereby called upon to show cause as to why you should not be awarded major penalty under Regulation 7.04 of the said Regulations. (4) You may submit a written defence and state whether you desire to be heard in person within 7 days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet, failing which it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer and do not wish to be heard in person. (5) Mr. Adam Khan, Airport Manager C.A.A. Peshawar Airport has been detailed as the Inquiry Officer in this case. (6) A statement of allegations is attached. (Sd. ) (Shahid Nazir Ahmad), Director administration (Authorised Officer)."

7. The reply furnished to the charge‑sheet by the appellant is contained in Annexure 'L' (pages 37 & 38) but is not direct i.e. parawise to the charge sheet. It appears to be of a general nature, evasive and ambiguous. It is said, "a lie has no legs to stand upon". Law had afforded him an ample opportunity but he failed to avail of it for the reasons best known to him. WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

8. Regulation 7.2(d) defines "misconduct" which includes:‑‑ "(i) Violation .of instructions, orders, issued by or on behalf of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); (iii) Willful insubordination or disobedience whether along or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior; (vi) riotous or disorderly behaviors during working hours; (vii) neglect of work or duty; (viii) conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline or unbecoming of a gentlemen. "

9. The statement of the appellant is extremely worth perusal containing material information. It is considered just and proper to reproduce the same in verbatim for correct analysis by all concerned instead of interpreting the same in general terms. The statement was recorded in question forms by the Enquiry Officer which reads: QUESTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT BOI FROM MR. ASADULLAH, SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER. Q.1. You have not submitted the written statement in response to the charge‑sheet issued by H.Q.C.A.A. Would you like to submit the same by now? Ans: I have referred to the statement against the charge‑sheet as desired by the authority in my correspondence/communication resting with the authority and the same is available on file, which may please be accordingly considered in proper perspective to the issue. Q.2. What were the reasons for not obeying transfer orders of the 'Competent Authority'? Ans: There is no disobedience of the orders of the competent Authority and the same are held in honour and under execution underlining redressal of grievance as addressed to the situation in its proper perspective. Q.3. What were the reasons for not handing over the charge even after suspension? Ans: Not handing over the charge even after suspension is a purely legal issue and does not merit execution. However, it is a signification, as to how the matter has been taken up and in eventuality, the same has not been barred, as subsequently, to the benefit of the authority. After the fresh individual has practically under cover of the management assumed functions, charge for the benefit of the authority has been relinquished in the form of transfer of record and returned the unused cheques alongwith the requisition slips to the Bank under the covering letter. Q.4. What kind of legal issue was involved in handing over the charge? Ans: Under suspension the individual is not to be on any dutiful work and in accordance, request for handing over charge after the same, have led to this drastic measure taken by the authority and the new individual put in place, primarily for the purpose in different garb, makes the point superflous. Q.5. How long you have been here at this airport? Ans: I have been posted to Peshawar Airport initially in December, 1988. Transferred back to H.Q.C.A.A. in February, 1990. Reposted to Peshawar Airport in October, 1993. Posted to Z.H.Q., N.‑W.F.P. in February, 1995 and then from Z.H.Q., N.‑W.F.P. Peshawar to H.Q.C.A.A. in December, 1995. Q.6. Any disciplinary action initiated against you since your appointment? Ans: I was charged for leave of absence without sufficient authority. However, the same was condoned in its legitimacy. Further to, that I have not been charged for any shortcomings to the authority. Q.7. Where have you been charged for absence from duty? Ans: H.Q.C.A.A. Q.8. Have your received any punishment in any disciplinary case against you? Ans: There have been no disciplinary case (s) against me except this one. Q.9. From the perusal of papers it appears that at later stage the charge was handed over by you. Why it was not handed over at the initial stage? Ans: I claim to hold charge to date, except for the high handedness of the authority and for the same not to create a situation unbecoming of an officer and to maintain allegiance to the well‑working of the authority via media as expressed has been adopted to signify the same and maintain unhurdled, smooth flow of work in redress to the situation. Q.10. Who is responsible for maintenance of cash book and cheque book? Ans: Till the date of suspension I hold responsibility to the functions of the office and in accordance the maintenance of the cash book and cheque book and in liaison with my staff and in subsequent to that, the authority in its functions would hold responsibility to the same. Q.11. Why you handed over the cheque book to the Bank? Ans: Having been deprived of the charge of Office due to suspension and the same having been made practically operative under the new incumbent, through fresh cheque books with changed signatures having taken place and there being no response from the Bank regarding letters issued on the subject, it was of prima concern, that the cheque book be returned to where it was issued from and confirm its safe custody. Q.12. What is the normal practice for issuance/possession of cheque book? Ans: The requisition for cheque book is included in the booklet and the same is required to be filled out for issue of fresh cheque book. The same is held in the custody of the Accountant alongwith the cash book. Q.13. As stated above the cheque book is normally in the custody of Accountant. How you managed to get it from him end returned the same to the Bank? Ans: The staff works under the instructions of officer and the cheque book or cash book is as good being held with either. There arises no question, how the same was retrieved. Q.14. What is the normal procedure for handing/taking over of charge in Accounts Section? Ans: C.A.A. is quite vague on procedures to specific situation and actions. However, it has been found that a piece of paper holding two signatures of handing/taking over charge under orders constitutes sufficient action. Procedure that we have been carried out is to close the cash/bank book reconcile outstanding cheques and balance develop and understanding to the satisfaction of either a person handing/taking over charge along the staff possession records and files and the same suffices for the job. Q.15. Has somebody instigated you not to hand over the charge? Ans: Not 'an instigation but a direct order from Director Finance to hold charge. Q.16. Have you received any written instructions from Director Finance for not handing over the charge? Ans: Telephonic instructions were corroborated for' confirmation but probably the set up may not have permitted the same. Again to hand over charge the same were obtained by Fax quite subsequent to the issue. Q.17. Did you hand over the charge after receiving the Fax immediately? Ans: The Fax refers to a letter, dated 29‑1‑1996 which I had requested for perusal but to no avail. Accordingly, smelling the highhanded situation I prefer to have redress to my grievances earlier notified and accordingly order/communications were held in honour for execution in good faith but again to no avail. Q.18: What were your grievances. Could you please elaborate them? Ans: The same are notified under signatures and remain on file for consideration step by step to each position and authority for consideration but to no avail. Q.19. Could you provide a copy of the same by now? Ans: I advise to please obtain complete documents from the authority assigning this inquiry as already notified in due perspective. Q.20. From above it appears that no copy is available with you at the moment? Ans: I do have a copy right on my desk in front of me. Again in the better interest as the same has been notified to the relevant Forums, may please be obtained in proper perspective. Q.21. What were your relations with your superiors during your stay at this airport? Ans: I have maintained official and to whatever little extent and that or in those circumstances personal relationship of due regard and respect of age and office during my tenure with C.A.A. at all Forums and positions. I maintain this due respect and regard was meted out with high‑handedness, brutal authority and pressure or harassment and threats to make an allegiance with the chair, as thought to be. My work and behaviour as against such repercussions was unfitting and in total allegiance to the sanctity of the bread and butter duly earned and in line with the functions of the authority. Q.22. What kind of threats you have been receiving from the Chair/Authority‑?. Ans: There is no count to list down these various communications and various issues over a period of time and even but let me assure you to dislocate was one of the primary one all the time and the same can be experienced. From the number of postings dislocations positions and workwise changes that I have experienced over this tenure time and again, which gives me the courage to stand up and face, yet what is left to come. Q.23. Are your relations with your colleagues normal? Ans: Yes! I have always been friendly with colleagues and staff members except where work or interest of the authority should bar the same. Q.24. Before your posting to the Zone, you served at this airport. Were there any differences with the immediate officer/colleagues? Ans: Yes with one particular individual but again based and developed for defending the interest of the authority. The same having been narrated in my correspondences/communications over this period of time in context to the subject. Q.25. Could you please name the said individual? Ans: Please consult the relevant correspondence in assurance to getting into proper perspective of the same. Q.26. Have you reported any differences in working, at this location to your superiors. If so please indicate it? Ans: The lot of them are in picture and the same again notified in my correspondence/communication with incidence and evidence. Q.27. Have you disobeyed any legal orders of the immediate officer at any stage of your service? Ans: I cannot think of doing this and never a situation arisen to disobey. Yes, I used my rubber stamp and may be refused my signatures in one such incident. But alas that was the only way out. It was brutal pressure and authority that I was facing." Note:‑‑ His statement can be seen at pages 52 to 56.

10. Mr. Farhad Ali. C.M. Accounts/Audit succeeded the appellant and he deposed that Mr.Asadullah, appellant, did not hand over charge to him despite joining duty on 28‑1‑1996. The old record was not handed over to him and per orders he had arranged new record including cash‑book, ledger and files relevant thereto. The appellant was officially informed to hand over the record but he had refused on a plea that Director Finance, had advised him not to do so. He had handed over the files to him on 5‑6‑1996 and not the "full charge" consisting of cash‑book, cheque book, ledger and accounts files followed by a certificate of handing over/taking over charge duly countersigned by the Zonal Manager (Ans. to Q.3). Please see his statement at pages 57 to 59.

11. The third witness was Mr. Ikramullah, Accounts Assistant, a direct subordinate working under' the appellant and was responsible to maintain: (i) Cash‑book, (ii) Ledger, (iii) Cheques for Payments, (iv) Payment Vouchers, (v) General Vouchers etc. These documents are kept by Accounts Assistant but he handed over the same to the appellant at his direction being his immediate boss. This witness confirmed a dispute between the appellant with one Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Chief Civil Engineer, N.‑W.F.P., over a bill which was latter on settled and paid. (Statement of this witness is available at pages 65 and 66) APPOINTMENT OF DIFFERENT INQUIRY OFFICERS.

12. Mr. Waqar Ahmed Seth, learned counsel for the appellant took an exception to the appointment of different Inquiry Officers which, according to him, indicates mala fide on part of the Administration. This argument apparently though appears to be weighty, to some extent, but falls to the ground when reads in its true perspective. The first Inquiry Officer appointed was Mr. Adam Khan, Manager, Peshawar Airport but due to objection raised by the appellant over his appointment and secondly too much pre‑occupation of Mr. Adam Khan in his duties, it was considered advisable to entrust this duty to another officer vide letter Annexure R.12, page 19 and hence Mr. W.K. Lughmani, General Manager, Co‑Ordination; Peshawar was appointed as Inquiry Officer by order, dated 19‑3‑1996 (Annexure R‑13 Page 20) but due to his indifferent approach vide letters Annexure R.14 and R.15 he was replaced yet by a third man, namely, Mr. Ali Akbar Burgari, General Manager, Commercial (N.‑W.F.P. & North), Islamabad who was commissioned to do the needful by order Annexure R.16 (Page 23). There does not appear either any irregularity or illegality in appointment of the various Inquiry Officers for which valid and good reasons did exist. The first enquiry was set aside mainly due to objection of the appellant, so was the fate of the second, duly warranted by indifferent approach or in-competency of the Inquiry Officer and thirdly the appellant appears to be satisfied with the last inquiry in absence of any objection to it. It is to observe that the last Inquiry Officer recommended the appellant for imposition of a minor penalty. WHAT IS ADMINISTRATION

13. It is first and foremost duty of the Administration to maintain discipline in its organization for providing a congenial and peaceful atmosphere to all its members which consists of servants in BPS. 1 to BPS‑

22. It is legally a preprogative of the Administration to maintain office discipline in the public interest. None can be allowed to work beyond sphere of activity. Administration can better be termed a thin thread yet very strong in knitting all of its tiers. The purpose of Administration is noble and sublime i.e. to utilize services of all concerned in the best interest of the people and the country. In term of ideology of the 'sacred land' it means: Unity, Faith and Discipline which is a direction (Qiblah) for all loyal citizens of the land like (Khanah Ka'bah) for loyal and faithful of Islam. We all, as Muslims and citizens of the sacred land owe allegiance to either of the two "directions". Loose Administration amounts to anarchy which is fatal to the foundation of the sacred land and in no case tolerable. The so‑called awareness and struggle for human rights "in whatever forms may be" is unwarranted by the principle of Administration. Maintenance of office discipline in all walks of activities has to be maintained otherwise there would prevail law of jungle.

14. Posting/transfer is also right of the Administration and for this detailed rules and instructions have been framed and none has got a vested right for his posting to a particular post or station. It is discretion of the Administration to do the needful subject, of course, judiciously and in larger interest of cadre and all incumbents working therein. Keeping in view safeguards and protection of rights of subordinate, the Administration can I do all possible legal activities strictly in the public interest.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated at the Bar that the penalty of removal from service inflicted upon the appellant was harsh in face of recommendation of the appellant by the Inquiry Officer for award of minor penalty. The short and legal answer to this is that Inquiry Officer/Committee is not competent/Authorized to make recommendations with respect to imposition of penalty whether major or minor generally whereas in the‑ instant case there exists a clear bar under heading "Disciplinary Action: Mistakes/Irregularities To Be Avoided" at pages 68 to 70 (relevant at page 69) of C.A.A. Service Regulations which requires that the Inquiry Officer will submit his findings to the Authorised Officer under Regulation 7.06(f) "without any recommendation as to the imposition of a minor or major penalty" vide Serial No.4, Perfunctory Inquiry on the subject cited above. This calls for no ambiguity and as such should not be a cause of either any inconvenience or complaint to the appellant. Report of the Inquiry Officer and his findings appear to be just and 'proper duly warranted by the facts on file and evidence recorded. These cannot be dubbed beyond scope of the proceedings or record available on the file.

16. A careful perusal of the record indicates that the appellant himself is responsible for the penalty inflicted on him. There is universal accountability in all spheres of activities whether private or official "here and hereafter". We get a reward for good actions and punishment for unwarranted deeds. It is said in Persain: "(Whatever we do we bear its burden/As you sow, so shall you reap.)" None can be held responsible for our personal actions and deeds. In this respect the relevant Quranic Injunction contains in Surah Al‑Baqarah, verse: 286, The relevant portion of which reads:‑‑ "(Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath. deserved".)

17. It is further to observe that statement of the appellant is quite crystal clear regarding his failure to honour lawful orders of the respondents consequent upon his transfer from Peshawar to K.C.A.A. He despite many directions flatly refused to honour the lawful orders. There was no genuine cause or bona fide act favouring him in not obeying lawful orders of the respondents. Keeping in view all the acts, omission and commission on part of the appellant he cannot get rid of the penalty which was awarded by the competent Authority for flagrant violation of the law and Administration cannot afford to establish a parallel Administrative Unit within its Organization. This sort of thing, if allowed, goes to the very root of the organization but one fails to understand that why the appellant resorted to it? There are reasons behind this and this aspect of the matter can be discussed under another sub‑head:‑‑ "(One's narration in one's words)."

18. In this respect the appellant has brought on file a detailed report, dated 28‑1‑1996 vide Annexure 'E' spreading over pages 15 to 26 and addressed to the Director Finance, Headquarters. This report lucidly depicts the appellant with respect to his erudition, faith, intellectual capability his view towards the others his personal interest in affairs of the Institution where he was working. In other words, it is a complete document about all aspects of his personality. From the first day when he intended to join the service under the respondents he could not join earlier than 3rd August, 1987, as directed in his appointment letter. This lengthy, report depicts him when read as a whole, as abnormal person not conveniently conforming to the view‑points of others, probably due to his high intellectual capability. While in Government service one must ordinarily adjust himself to the Rules and Regulation of the Institution concerned owing due allegiance and respect to the Administration and his seniors. There is a golden principle contained in Persian language:‑‑ "(If people cannot adjust to you, you should adjust yourself to them.)" There is no reason why an individual should not adjust himself to the society in which he resides and in the instant case to the office discipline and officer around him. It is said that "behaviour is a mirror in which every one displays his own image". It will not be out of place to mention that the said report is a mirror for the appellant through which all aspects of his life can be vividly seen and analysed. It is further said that "ability is of little account without opportunity". In this respect the appellant was given an ample opportunity but he improperly. it appears, pressed into service his ability, an Allah's gift on him. There is another proverb "there is no great genius without a mixture of madness". None can doubt the vocabulary with which God has gifted the appellant. The appellant, subject to the "Pak; Essential Service (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (as per his appointment letter), appears to be definitely Administration risk if not security risk.

19. The said report depicts the appellant always in finding faults with Administration inclusive of the senior and superior to him. Alas it would have been much better had he developed a compromising nature for resolution of problems of the colleagues and others around him. What is purpose of life is known to all and it is to weigh and consider and not to confuse matters and secondly to serve others with love and affection. He could achieve laurels in case of developing positive approach in total harmony with Administration but he developed a negative approach for reasons best known to him. The policy of bravado is detrimental not only to the person concerned but to others as well. Humility is greatness and not arrogance. The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) has said:‑‑ "(I am proud of my humility.)" In other words humility is a sign of greatness and not otherwise. All great people were simple and humble and hence the modern technology and development in all walks of life which are enjoyed even by a smallest and ordinary member of a society. The appellant despite highly qualified and highly intellectual appears to be ascetic who could not adjust easily to the surroundings in which he was. NATURE OF THE PENALTY.

20. Removal from service is not a hurdle in seeking employment eleswhere whereas such an incumbent is debarred from service in the same institution from which he was removed. In other words in the infinite land of Allah he can seek employment elsewhere and can better utilize his talents in best interest of the country. From the time he entered the C.C.A. he could not for one reason or another adjust himself to the atmosphere prevailed therein. The Administration was left with no alternative except to take the desired action arid it is a great benevolence on part of the Administration towards the appellant to have not dismissed him from service. That course would have definitely not only shocked the appellant but all other concerned including his well‑wishers. Allah Almighty is the sustainer and he provides livelihood regardless of one's efforts provided somebody has got a blind faith and aspires for something. The Administration was left with no alternative except to remove the appellant from service due to his peculiar approach in each and every concerned activity. Just possible this removal may prove a blessing in disguise for him elsewhere for the hard time which he spent under the Administration. He appears to be a principled man whereas such like people are not liked since long. It is laid down that:‑‑

21. Keeping in view all the aspects of the appeal the penalty of removal from service appears to be more just and proper, not only for the appellant but also for the Administration. Continuous differences leads to ultimate maladministration which thereby brings bad name to in organization and all the servants working thereunder. Where there is lack of tact, the result is departmental action and in the instant case the appellant never exercised tact the golden principle in the hierarchy of administration/service. The appellant also appears to have ignored the principle, "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so". We are supposed to work with open mind and not with closed eyes and mind.

22. Pursuant to aforegoing discussion, this appeal regretfully fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./271‑ST Appeal dismissed.