Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DR. MRS. FARRUKH TAHIR VS Respondent: ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITYHonorable Justice QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUIAbdul Rashid Baloch,Sardar Shahid Hanif and Sohail Nazir Rana
2006 P L C (C
2006 P L C (C.S.) 898
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Rashid Baloch, Member-I and Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Member-II
DR. MRS. FARRUKH TAHIR
Versus
ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and another
Appeal No.8(R)(CE) of 2001, decided on 18th June, 2005.
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
----Rr. 3(b), 4(1)(b)(iii)(iv) & 5(i)(iii)---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Dismissal/removal from service---Appeal against--Conversion of penalty---Major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon appellant after issuing her show-cause notice, but without holding inquiry against her on charge of misconduct---During pendency of appeal of appellant, penalty of dismissal from service was converted by the Authority into "removal from service (termination) on compassionate ground"---Allegation against appellant was that she approached higher and external Authorities, directly; bypassing normal channel of communication and levelling wild and baseless allegations against various officers/Authorities of the University in violation of Rules---Regular inquiry against appellant was dispensed with on the ground of availability of documentary evidence on record---Regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against an accused employee, had to be held specially where factual controversy existed between employee and employer---Appellant, in the present case, had already raised serious factual controversy alleging mala fide, hostility and vendetta against respondent/Vice-Chancellor and others in connection with selection of co-employee ignoring the appellant---Such situation alone was sufficient to necessitate regular inquiry in the matter---Full chance of personal hearing through was given to appellant, but no regular inquiry was ordered or held in the matter, which was a patent illegality, lacking judicious application of law, which led to imposition of major penalty upon he appellant---Collateral and subsequent development in case of appellant, however, could not be overlooked---Appellant, had all along raised, with all ferocity, hue and cry about alleged injustice allegedly meted out to her by appointing co-employee and ignoring her first position in the merit list, but no question of her first position was raised by appellant during personal hearing and she did not call upon authorities to file or produce original selection list---Alleged misconduct, had fully been proved against appellant---Appellant was highly qualified lady, did not appear to have behaved like normal educated woman which could be due to her pregnancy---Case of the appellant needed to be considered sympathetically and her punishment of removal from service was converted into penalty of withholding of her two increments for two years, on compassionate grounds, and she was reinstated in service from date of her removal from service.
2003 PLC (CS) 353; 2004 SCMR 294; 2003 SCMR 681; 2003 PLC (CS) 358; 2002 SCMR 57 and 2001 SCMR 1566 ref.
Abdul Rashid Baloch for Appellant.
Sardar Shahid Hanif and Sohail Nazir Rana Asstt. (Legal) AIOU Departmental Representation for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th June, 2005.
JUDGMENT
QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondents vide notification, dated 11-8-2000 reproduced as under:
"ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
(Registrar's Department)
No. F. 6.60/34. Adinn/5319???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Dated: August 11, 2000
NOTIFICATION
Whereas Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer in Biology (BPS 17), Department of Biology, was proceeded against under Federal Government Efficiency and Discipline Rules applicable to Allama Iqbal Open University, on account of approaching higher and external authorities directly; bypassing normal channel of communications i.e., AIOU authorities, and levelling wild and baseless allegations against various officers/authorities of the University, in violation of rules.
And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer, issued show-cause notice to Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer under Rule 5(i)(iii) of the E&D Rules. The Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer called her for Personal Hearing twice, but she did not turn up to defend herself. On the basis of the facts, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer recommended to the Executive Council that Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer, is held guilty of misconduct and, therefore, a major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" be imposed upon her.
And whereas, the Executive Council in its 13th Emergency Meeting held on 11-8-2000 considered the recommendations of the Authorized Officer. Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, requested for Personal Hearing by the Council on the morning of 11-8-2000. The Council agreed to call her for personal hearing and provided her an opportunity of defending herself in person before the Council (Authority).
And whereas, the Executive Council (Authority) after considering the facts of the case, her contentions during the Personal Hearing and the recommendations of the Authorized Officer was convinced that the charges against her stand proved. The Council, therefore, decided to impose upon Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir a major penalty of "dismissal from service" under Rule-4(l)(b)(iv) of E&D Rules with effect from the after noon of 11-8-2000.
Now, therefore, Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer in Biology (BPS-17) stands dismissed from the service of the AIOU from the afternoon of 11-8-2000.
The particulars of Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir are as under:--
Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir (w/o Tahir Furqan) D/o Muhammad Idrees. Resident of House No.1158, G-9/4, Islamabad.
(Sd.) (Dr. M. Aslam-Asghar) Registrar."
The appellant filed Departmental appeal/review on 6-9-2000, which was not responded to within the statutory period of 90 days, therefore, the appellant preferred appeal before the FST on 3-1-2001 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973. However, during the pendency of the appeal iii the Tribunal, the respondents converted the penalty of dismissal of the appellant from service and imposed upon her the penalty of "Removal from service (termination)" on compassionate grounds vide notification, dated 25-6-2001. Her appeal being No.8(R)CE/2002 (Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir v. Allama Iqbal Open University and others) was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment, dated 23-11-2002, having become infructuous for not amending her appeal after conversion of penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service.
2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her appeal, appellant Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.421 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10-3-2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal. Relevant para. 8 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"(8) In view of aforesaid circumstances and reasoning we set aside the impugned order and convert this petition into appeal and allow the same remanding the case to learned Federal Service Tribunal to decide the case afresh on merits dilating upon the pleas raised before it, and to give a definite finding as to whether in the instant case dispensing with of regular enquiry could be judicious application of rule/regulation for the imposition of major penalty and whether the petitioner in the circumstances of case was liable to major penalty of dismissal/removal."
3. Precisely, the facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent-University as Lecturer Botany in May, 1984. She was then by regular appointment made Lecturer Biology in September, 1984. She was subsequently granted Open Merit Commonwealth Scholarship for Ph.D. She obtained such a decree in the Environmental Studies from Bradford University. In response to an advertisement of the respondent No.1, dated 24-7-1999, she applied along with others for the post of Assistant Professor. The Selection Board of the respondent-University allegedly placed her at No.1 in the merit list, but due to manoeuvring, machination and pressure of the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, Dr. Irfan Khan, who was placed at No.2 in the merit list, was appointed against the advertised post of Assistant Professor, although he did not, allegedly, possess the Doctorate in the relevant field. She was denied the personal hearing sought by her. She made a complaint against the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University to the Federal Education Minister against the injustice done to her, on which a two-member Inquiry Committee comprising Professor Dr. S., Altai Hussain, whole Time member, UGC and Muhammad Yaqoob, DG (Finance), UGC was constituted to examine her grievance. The Committee recommended that Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir be appointed as Assistant Professor (B-18) in the newly established Department of Environmental Sciences against the vacant post of BPS-18 shown in the current budget (1999-2000) of the AIOU forwarded to the Finance Department through University Grants Commission. The Minister for Education/Pro-Chancellor, AIOU, approved the above recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. As against the selection and appointment of Dr. Irfan Khan and having not been appointed as per recommendation of the Executive Council, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and the Wafaqi Mohtasib, but she did not succeed. Thereafter, she started sending applications to the higher authorities, Welfare Associations of the University and the national personal levelling serious allegations against the University administration of corruption, maladministration, financial corruption, racism, discrimination, favourites, wilfully misguiding the members of Executive Council, promoting demerit in AIOU, using members of the Executive Council as Rubber Stamps and forgery. She also dubbed the University administration as culprits and asked for the removal of the University authorities. Some of the allegations, levelled by the appellant in her applications, addressed/endorsed to the Chief Executive of Pakistan, are as under:--
"I expect from the higher authorities to have a stern action against Dr. Anwar's racisim, injustice, stubbornness, discrimination and being promoter of demerit in AIOU. He must be removed from the Vice-Chancellorship to save the University from corruption and maladministration with a higher level investigation inquiry with regard to merit selection and financial corruption.
"I am facing serious mental tensions and agony due to this forgery coupled with discrimination and racism committed by Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui and his maladministration. For these frauds, forgeries, blatant lies etc., I have no choice but to sue the culprits for which I have already consulted with my legal advisor. Very soon my legal adviser will issue the legal notices to the culprits for compensation of damages."
"AIOU Administration's statement about disposal of my appeals by the LHC and the Wafaqi Mohtasib are absolutely incorrect and misleading and proving further evidence of racism, injustice, fraud, forgery, misdeeds etc. To the higher authorities, will do this again and again until AIOU is free from injustice, racism and discrimination."
Her undesirable activities went a step forward by addressing an application to the DG, FIA Islamabad. The Registrar of the respondent University then addressed to the appellant following Respondent University then addressed to the appellant following warning vide letter 27-1-2000, which reads as under:
"You have been incessantly and consistently submitting appeals/letters etc., to the Higher Authorities maligning the Vice-Chancellor in person and AIOU administration as well, despite the fact that your case was considered by the appropriate (sic) for a (sic) but was rejected.
The correct procedure for submission of appeal is provided in the Civil Servants Act of 1973 which envisages submission of all such requests through proper channel. Non-adherence to this procedure, tantamounts to misconduct.
Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act bars representations/appeals etc., for promotions/selection or holding a particular post, therefore, your claim that you are fit to be the Asstt. Professor is judgment of your own about yourself. You are finally warned to desist from submitting such representations/letters etc. to higher authorities by any means in future otherwise severe disciplinary action will be taken against you under E & D Rules."
Inspite of the above-mentioned warning, the appellant did not desist from making any further petition of the kind mentioned above, with the result that the Vice-Chancellor as authorized officer of the respondent-University issued `the following show-cause notice, dated 1-3-2000:--
"Subject:---Show Cause Notice.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (iii) of Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui. Vice-Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), as Authorised Officer in respect of Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (Biology) Faculty of Sciences, AIOU:--
(a) am of the opinion that in view of the allegations listed in paragraph 4 below, that Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (Biology), Faculty of Sciences, AIOU, appears to be prima facie guilty of misconduct, and that there are sufficient grounds that disciplinary action be initiated against her under the said Rules; and
(b) have decided that it is not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee.
(2) I, therefore, by this Notice inform the said Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tapir, that on the grounds listed in paragraph 4 below, it is proposed to impose on her the major penalty of dismissal from service, described iii Rule 4 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. She is accordingly called upon to show-cause why the proposed action should not be taken against her.
(3) The explanation (in duplicate) should reach the undersigned within 14 (fourteen) days of the receipt of this Notice, failing which it shall be presumed that she has no defence to offer and that she accepts the charges. She may also state in writing if she desires to be heard in person.
(4) The details of her acts of omission and commission constituting misconduct are as under:
(i) that she has been submitting petitions/applications to higher authorities on matters relating to her appointment to a particular post, which is barred by proviso to section 22 of the Civil Servants Act;
(ii) that all her petitions contained wild allegations against superior officers, and were in violation of the prescribed procedure laid down in Establishment Secretary's D.O. letter, No.8/13/71-F. 1 dated 28-5-1974 (Serial No.13, pages 9788-979 ESTA CODE, 1989 Edition);
(iii) that despite the fact that her appeals before the Lahore High Court, the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the Executive Council of the AIOU, having failed, she did not desist from making any further such appeals to higher authorities containing wild allegations against senior officers;
(iv) that she has been endorsing copies of the above said petitions to the press, without permission of the competent authority, bringing in disrepute to the University and the senior officers of the AIOU;
(v) that she was warned to be careful and to desist from her such nefarious activities vide AIOU's letter No. F. 6-60/84-Admn/475, dated 27th January, 2000, otherwise severe disciplinary action would be taken against her under the E&D Rules; and
(vi) that she instead of desisting from making any further petitions, she by her application, dated 24th February, 2000, addressed to the Registrar, AIOU, not only levelled the same old wild and baseless allegations against the senior officers of the University she went a step further by enclosing an application addressed to the Director General, FIA, levelling false, baseless and wild allegations against senior officers of the University for registration of criminal case, the requested, (sic) for its transmission through proper channel.
(Sd.) (Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui) VICE-CHANCELLOR,AIOU AND AUTHORISED OFFICER"
The appellant replied the show - cause notice vide her reply, dated 21-6-2000 wherein repeating her allegations against the Vice-Chancellor, expressed no confidence in him and demanded a full-fledged inquiry after changing the Vice Chancellor as Authorized officer. The appellant then submitted an application to the Chairman, Executive Council, AIOU, through the Vice-Chancellor, for withdrawal of the show-cause notice, dated 1-3-2000, the appeal was, however, withheld by following letter, dated 2-8-2000:--
"Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
Please refer to your Appeal, dated 10th July, 2000 on the subject noted above.
(2) I am directed to state that your Appeal under reference does not contain a reference to the final order appealed against and therefore, the same has been withheld by the authority in accordance with rule 7(1)(a) of the Civil Servant (Appeal) Rules, 1977 applicable to the employees of Allama Iqbal Open University.
(Sd.) (Dr. M. Aslam Asghar) Registrar."
The appellant was twice called by the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer for personal hearing, but through her letter, dated 3-1-2001 she declined to appear before him again levelling allegations against him. On 2-8-2000, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized officer submitted to the Executive Council a detailed report with the following recommendations:
"(4) Recommendations:
(1) In the light of preceding paragraphs, Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (accused), Faculty of Sciences, AIOU is held guilty of "Misconduct." It is recommended that major penalty of "dismissal from service" as provided under Rule 4(l)(b)(iv) of the E&D Rules be imposed upon the said Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, (accused) with immediate effect."
The appellant was then called in the 13th Emergency Meeting of the AIOU Executive Council held on 11-8-2000 and she was heard in detail by following 9 members of the Executive Council (out of total number of 15) present in the meeting:--
"(1)
Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui Vice- Chancellor
Chairman
(2)
Dr. Justice Fida Muhammad Khan Judge, Federal Shairat Court
Member
(3)
Mr. Iftikhar Arif Chairman, Academy of Letters
Member
(4)
Dr. A.W. I3aloch Director General? (Adorn), UGC
Nominee of the Chairman UGC
(5)
Dr. M.Tufail Hashmi, Dean, Faculty of AIS.
Member
(6)
Dr. Parveen Liaqat, Dean, Faculty of Sciences
Member
(7)
Dr., Qudsia Riffat Associate Professor
Member
(8)
Mr. Iqbal Shah Assistant Professor
Member
(9)
Syeda Mohsina Munawar Lecturer"
Member
4. The appellant Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir was examined by the Executive Council. The questions put to her by the Members of the Executive Council and her replies are relevant for understanding the whole case of the appellant and for just decision of this appeal. These are reproduced as under (Minutes of the 13th Emergency Meeting of the AIOU Executive Council held on 11-8-2000):--
"During the personal hearing, the questions asked and her responses to the questions are given below:
(i) Why has she taken the position that she could not accept the Vice-Chancellor as the Authorized Officer as per the Rules? Can she cite any instance of personal bias or discrimination against her by the Vice-Chancellor who has been appointed as Authorized Officer by the Executive Council in its 57th meeting held on 7-2-1998?
She could not cite any example of personal bias against her by the Vice-Chancellor.
(ii) She was asked whether all the letters/petitions and news item mentioned in the documents placed before the Council, were written by her or not'? She was specifically confronted in with the following news item published in the daily `Nawa-e-Waqt', Rawalpindi/Islamabad of 9-11-1999. She affirmed that all the petitions/letters were written by her and endorsed by her. She, however, claimed that the news item was not directly sent by her. It was either sent by her husband or copied by the newspaper from her petitions.
(iii) She-was asked whether she continued to write similar petitions directly to the Minister/Pro-Chancellor, Member of the Executive Council and others after the issuance of written warning to her by the Registrar on 27-1-2000.
She maintained that she did not write any petition directly after the issuance of the written warning and that she rather submitted such petitions through the University.
She categorically denied to have written any application or letter to anyone, after the issuance of warning to her on 27-1-2000. However, perusal of the record reveals that on 4-4-2000, she wrote an application duly signed by her and tick marked to G-1, Corp 10, Rawalpindi, dated 24-2-2000, and another letter addressed to the Director-General, F.I.A., Islamabad, dated 24-2-2000 (after the written warning), making serious allegations against various officers and authorities demanding that an F.1.R. should be registered against the following, stating as under:--
"Hence, Dr. Anwar and his administration purposely committed fraud, forgery, racism etc. against me. Firstly, deliberately changed the merit against the recommendations of the Selection Board of the AIOU for the post of Assistant Professor (Environmental Science) and secondly wilfully provided wrong interpretation/misguided to the higher authorities about my Ph.D degree only to defend their injustice, fraud, forgery, racism, etc., against me. I request you Sir, to kindly register a case against the following culprits as per P.P.C. under intimations to me and to start legal proceedings for the above mentioned fraud/forgery:--
(1) Dr. Anwar Hussain Siddiqui, Vice-Chancellor, AIOU.
(2) Ch. Saeed Ahmed, Ex-Registrar, AIOU.
(3) Dr. M. Aslam Asghar, Registrar, AIOU.
(4) Mr. Ilyas Ahmed, Additional Registrar.
(5) Mr. lftikhar Arif, 4011C, Part Towers, F, 8/3, Islamabad. (External Member, Executive Council).
(6) Dr. A.H. Dani, H. No.17, St. 10, F-8/3, Islamabad. (External Member. Executive Council).
(7) Prof. Dr. Altaf Ali G. Shaikh, 347, St. 29, 1-8/1, Islamabad. (Chairman, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad)."
She was shown these letters but she could not give any satisfactorily reply and could not explain the contradiction pointed out to her. She accepted that the signatures on the petitions are her's, but probably her husband got her signatures on the petition and sent it to these people.
(iv) She was asked whether she was advised and counselled by the Dean, Faculty of Sciences. Dean, Faculty of Arabic and Islamic Studies and many other Faculty colleagues, to desist from violating the University conduct Rules.
She did not deny that such counselling was offered to her. The Dean, Faculty of Sciences, Dean, Faculty of AIS, who were present in the meeting, reminded her of all the advice and counselling offered to her by them repeatedly to desist from violating the University conduct rules. She did not deny these facts.
(v) She was asked by Mr. Iftikhar Arif, Member, AIOU, Executive Council that how she can prove that the call threatening her and her family was made by the Vice-Chancellor.
She agreed that, during the last there and a half years, the V ice-Chancellor had never talked to her on telephone. She indicated that the call might have been made by somebody else.
Mr. lftikhar, Arif, further asked her as to why she did not verify it from the Vice-Chancellor, whether he had made the call, when she was not sure, and took the precipitate action of complaining to all and sundry, of the Vice-Chancellor's threats.
She could not give any plausible explanation and admitted that someone might have faked the call.
(vi) Finally, she was asked by Dr. Justice Fida Muhammad Khan, Member, AIOU Executive Council, whether she feels any repentance/remorse on her behaviour.
She refused to show any repentance/remorse, and added that whatever she has done was correct.
All through the Hearing and discussion of her case, all the attending members remained present.
After the conclusion of the hearing, the Council unanimously observed that it has been proved beyond doubt that:--
(i) She has owned all the petitions written by her against the University.
(ii) She could not cite any instance or example of any personal bias by the Vice-Chancellor against her.
(iii) She had been counselled all along by all concerned including the Dean, Faculty of Sciences, to desist from violating the conduct rules.
(iv) She continued to write petitions directly to outside authorities and others including the Members of the AIOU Executive Council, inspite of a written warning by the Registrar.
(v) She has refused to show any repentance or remorse about her behaviour and actions, even at this stage."
The Executive Council, AIOU unanimously accepted the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.