2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 25‑1‑1999 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing his dismissal from service was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was an officer of the Police Service of Pakistan in B. P. S 20 and was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, The charges of misconduct and corruption in respect of owning and possessing the assets disproportionate to his known source of income were framed. The inquiry was conducted and on the basis thereof the petitioner was dismissed from service vides order dated 13‑11‑1997. A departmental appeal was filed and having heard no reply, the petitioner then invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The following charges were framed: "That you committed the following acts of misconduct and corruption:‑‑ (i) You failed to submit the annual declaration of assets for the years 1985, 1986, 1992 and 1993, and thus, violated rule 12(2) of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (ii) You declared Property No.61‑R, LCCHS Lahore Cantt having an approximate value of Rs.3 or 4 million in your declaration of assets for the year 1995. The said property is stated to have been partly inherited and partly paid for. Your previous declarations show the inheritance of 1/4th share in a house at Kasur of an approximate value of Rs.1,00,000 in 1969, which was jointly inherited with your brother in 1966‑

67. There is no record of the inheritance of the property declared by you in 1995. Investment appears to have been made from your own undeclared source of income. ?(iii) Agricultural land measuring 40 acres valuing Rs.2 million was shown as inherited by your wife in 1984 in Kasur. Your declaration of assets for the year 1995 shows agricultural land measuring about 34 acres valuing Rs.6 million in Kasur inherited by you. It appears that the land has been purchased by you from own sources, which have not been declared. (iv) Movable property worth Rs.2 million has been declared as partly inherited and partly purchased in the declaration of assets for the year 1995. No break‑up of inheritance and purchase has been given and no source from which the purchase has been financed is indicated. Permission for purchase also does not seem to have been obtained."

3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having gone through the record of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which leave should be granted to consider the following questions:‑‑ (i) Out of 30 years of service the petitioner remained suspended for more than six and a half years and remained posted for nearly seven years. In this view of the matter, the finding of the charge of corruption needs reappraisal. (ii) There is force in the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner was victimized on account of political reasons and the matter requires probe. (iii) Whether the inquiry in this case was impartial? (iv) Whether sufficient evidence exists on the record to connect the petitioner with the charges framed against him? Leave is accordingly granted.??? Q.M.H./M.A.K./Q‑1/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.