Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HUMAYUN IQBAL SHAMI VS Respondent: PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 100
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Actg. C. J., Ch. Muhammad Arif and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ
HUMAYUN IQBAL SHAMI
versus
PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another
Civil Appeal No.893 of 1996, decided on 15th May, 2001.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑9‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 219‑R/95).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Penalty of censure‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the Establishment Secretary had on a fresh probe on charge of creating a situation of law and order and indiscipline, which had been dropped by the then Establishment Secretary, found the civil servant guilty of the same and illegally awarded penalty of censure which was not sustainable in law.
(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Exoneration from charge‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Penalty of censure was awarded by Competent Authority and the same was maintained by Service ‑Tribunal‑Plea raised by civil servant was that the charge on the basis of which the penalty was imposed had already been dropped‑‑‑Civil servant, in proof o1 the plea raised referred to issuance of release certificate in case of his selection for job under UNEP‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Mere issuance of release certificate in case of selection of civil servant or his nomination to participate in the course would not be sufficient to infer that the civil servant had been exonerated‑‑‑Exoneration from a charge could not be inferred by implication in disciplinary matter against civil servants under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules‑‑‑Exoneration from such charge warranted a clear order of Competent Authority‑‑‑Findings of Competent Authority or those of the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Authority or the Tribunal.
Appellant in person.
Salahuddin Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 2001.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑This appeal with the leave of the Court granted under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assails the judgment dated 4‑9‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter called as "The Tribunal") whereby the Service Appeal filed by the appellant against awarding him the penalty of censure by the competent authority was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case, noted in the leave granting order, are that the appellant who was holding the post of Deputy Director, Trade Training Centre, in the month of September, 1991, was charge‑sheeted on as many as ten charges, out of which Inquiry Officer found him guilty of, only .charge No. 8 which was to the following effect:‑‑‑
"You were responsible for creating a situation of law and order and indiscipline on 17‑6‑1991 as a consequence of your continuous misbehaviour with staff and trainees and managed the arrest of M/s. Rana Muhammad Saleem and Abdul Rahi, Naib Farash, Trade Training Centre by police. The trainees of Trade Training Centre and the staff (BPS/1‑4) of the Trade Training Centre Ch. Rehmat Ali Community Centre and Aabpara Community Centre assembled on 17‑6‑1991 in front of the Director‑General's Office in protest to your misbehaviour and the arrest of the said officials managed by you. Not only this, the Pakistan Grades 1 to 11 Employees Association threatened through Haji Merharban Khan, President and Sufi Ahmed Din, General Secretary, to take the matter to higher authorities and the Court. Due to threatening law and order situation, the Trade Training Centre had been closed down from 25‑6‑1991 to 30‑6‑1991."
3. According to the appellant, he was given personal hearing in respect of the above charge and then the Establishment Secretary after hearing him had dropped it. In order to substantiate this assertion, the appellant had produced photo copies of letter, dated 10‑10‑1993 indicating that Mr. U.A.G. Isani, the then Secretary Establishment Division, had issued a release certificate stating that the appellant "who had applied for the post of Senior Programme Officer under UNEP in Paris, will be spared if selected". The appellant also made pointed reference to another letter, dated 28‑8‑1994 issued by the Section Officer (Adorn.), Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, to Section Officer (T.III) Establishment Division, Islamabad, wherein "the competent authority had nominated the appellant for the course at the IMF Institute, Washington, D.C. in the United States of America for 1995" and that the documents in this regard were forwarded to the agencies. It was thus contended by the appellant before the Tribunal‑that the Establishment Secretary, had on a fresh probe on Charge No.8 which had been dropped by the then Establishment Secretary found him guilty of the same and illegally awarded him the penalty of censure which was not sustainable in law.
3‑A. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the above contentions.
4. The appellant who had appeared in person had reiterated before us the contentions which he had raised before the learned Tribunal.
5. Mr. Salahuddin Khan, learned D.A.‑G. has supported the impugned order both on facts and law.
6. We inquired from the appellant, who had argued his case in person, as to whether he had brought on record of the learned Tribunal or before us any material substantiating his plea that he had been tacitly exonerated from the Charge No.8 reproduced in para.2 ante. The appellant answered in the negative but pleaded, that since he had been spared by the competent authority for his selection as Senior Programme Officer under UNEP and also for course noted above, he had been exonerated of the charge by implication by Mr. .U.A.G. Isani, the then Secretary Establishment and, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the penalty of censure. We regret we have not been impressed by the aforenoted plea of the appellant. If the appellant had been exonerated, it should have been so recorded in precise terms in an appeal, representation or review made to the Establishment Secretary. Mere issuance of a release certificate in case of his selection for a job under the UNEP or nomination of the appellant to participate in the aforenoted course would not be sufficient to infer that the appellant had been exonerated. In disciplinary matters against the civil servants under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules, the exoneration from the charge cannot be inferred by implication. Any exoneration from such charges warrants a clear order of the competent authority. This plea of the appellant, therefore, has no merit.
7. The next plea of the appellant was that no witness has deposed against him so as to hold him guilty of Charge No.8. In this context, we have examined the record and find that the testimony of Haji Meharban Khan P.W., photo copy placed at page 39 of the Paper Book had been recorded by the Inquiry Officer who has deposed against him on Charge No.8. Haji Meharban Khan, P.W. aforesaid was President, Pakistan Grades 1 and 11 Employees' Association and his testimony on Charge No.8 found favour with the Inquiry Officer and he held him guilty thereof.
8. We find that there is no legal infirmity of the kind in the proceedings as to vitiate the findings of the competent authority or those of the Tribunal. The inference drawn by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference. This appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑39/S ????????
Appeal dismissed.