2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4th January, 2001 ‑whereby service appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11th March, 2000 whereby he was removed from service, has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Junior Clerk in Frontier Corps. He was supposed to appear in departmental examination schedule of which was announced by office order dated 25th May, 1999 and examination was commenced on 28th September, 1999 at 8‑30 a.m. but in the said date the time of examination was postponed to 11‑30 a.m. due to unavoidable commitments in the unit. The change in the time was duly informed to all concerned but when the examination commenced, the petitioner alongwith few other Junior Clerks did not appear in the examination, whereas 21 Clerks appeared for this purpose. It is stated that petitioner not only boycotted the examination and instigated some other Clerks not to appear in examination but also insisted for, change of the President, Board of the Examination as in his view, the President, nominated to conduct this examination, was strict officer. Thus on account of such conduct, show‑cause notice was served upon him on 16th October, 1999 wherein he was called upon to explain as to why in spite of clear regimental orders, he refused to appear in the examination and besides instigated the 18 Clerks 'of other units to gang up and participate in boycotting the examination. In pursuance of the show‑cause notice, inquiry was conducted by a committee consisting of a Major as President, two Captains and another as members. Petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Committee but he refused to do so and forwarded written objections on one of the members of the Inquiry Committee and its President and requested that the Inquiry Committee may be detailed from other unit of the Frontier Corps and also include members of the Ministerial staff. However, his such request being unwarranted was turned down and inquiry was conducted, during the course whereof number of witnesses were examined and ultimately on the basis of which Inquiry Committee opined that the petitioner is guilty for disobeying lawful orders. As such on 11th March, 2000, petitioner was removed from service. He preferred departmental appeal which was rejected on 17th August, 2000 by the Secretary, Interior. Later on petitioner preferred appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.

3. Petitioner's counsel did not appear, however, petitioner appeared in person and stated that he was innocent and he has not disobeyed the lawful order of his command. We have heard the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant documents. A perusal whereof indicates that sufficient material was collected by the Inquiry Committee to establish that the petitioner is found guilty of not obeying lawful order of his command and his such conduct is against the good order of service. It may be noted that petitioner is a member of the disciplinary force, therefore, it was obligatory upon him to have carried out the lawful orders issued by his command. But he was reluctant to do so with the result not only that he boycotted the examination but also successfully instigated some other members of the force not to appear in the examination. His this conduct is not only unbecoming being a member of Disciplinary Force but seriously objectionable being a servant of Government. In addition to it, petitioners/wanted to have examiner of his own choice which is not permissible on any principle of law. Inasmuch as when the Inquiry Committee was constituted, he did not accept to its composition and prayed ' that the members of the Inquiry Committee may be taken from some other Unit. In our opinion his such conduct was sufficient to prove that he has no care about the orders of the command and intentionally violated the lawful orders. Therefore, for such reasons, the order of the Service Tribunal is not open to any exception. As a consequence of above discussion, petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑350/S????????? Leave refused.