I N D E X
|
S# |
Case No. |
||||||
|
1. |
C.P.L.A No.1287 of 2003 – Federation Vs. Nasrullah
Khan Wazir 2005 TD (Service=
) 49 Present : =
; Mr. Justice Rana
Bhagwandan Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza [Supreme Court of C.P.L.A No.1287 =
of 2003
dismissed on 5.10.2004. (on appeal from jud=
gment
of Federal Service Tribunal, (in C.P. No.1287 of 2003)<= /p> FEDERATION OF (in C.P. Nos. 1288 to 1292 of 200= 3) CENTRAL BOARD OF=
REVENUE
& OTHERS ---- Petitioners versus (in C.P. No. 1287 of 2003)= NASRULLAH KHAN W=
AZIR
& OTHERS =
; ------ =
; Respondent (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000) – Ss. 3,5 (as amended by O= rdinance V of 2001). Disciplinary action by way of termination of services of Cust= oms officials on the basis of recommendations of enquiry committee constituted under Pakistan Army Act, 1952 would be devoid of jurisdiction and legal effect as Customs officials are not amenable to Pakistan Army Act. Discip= linary proceedings initiated against Customs officials by Force Commander under = the provisions of Pakistan Army Act cannot be clothed with any sanctity or la= wful authority. Service Tribunal would be right in accepting appeals of Customs officials, setting aside termination orders passed against them and order= ing their reinstatement by treating intervening period as leave of the kind d= ue. Supreme Court upholding judgment of Service Tribunal as based on judicial application of mind by Service Tribunal and refusing leave to the Federat= ion to appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal. (P. 53, 54, 56, 57) (b) Ibi=
d --- &nbs= p; Ss. 3,5. Termination of service of Customs officia= ls would be illegal when material witnesses did not support of allegations leveled against them. Tainted evidence of witness who was an accomplice coupled with his admission that he had been paid Rs.100,000/- by way of illegal gratification to depose against Customs officials would= be unworthy of credit and cannot be made basis of disciplinary action. (P.57) (c) Departmental
Enquiry--- = ; In the face of direct, substantial and documentary evidence challenging the appointment of particular enquiry officer as having bias/prejudice and lacking impartiality/integrity, it would always be just, fair and proper = to appoint an independent and impartial enquiry officer rather than to insist upon the appointment of a particular person. It is always necessary, in t= he interest of justice, fairplay and transparenc= y of proceedings to have the enquiry conducted by an officer or uncontroversial reputation and a person of independent nature. When civil servant has expressed complete lack of confidence in the enquiry officer, it would be difficult to place much reliance on his findings and Service Tribunal wou= ld act neither illegally nor arbitrarily in not relying upon his report. 1. &n= bsp; Learned counsel agitate= d that the respondents being customs officials were not amenable and subject to provisions of Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in terms of Section 2 thereof and entire Court of Enquiry constituted, held and proceedings relied upon by = the department as well as the Enquiry Officer/Enquiry Committee were totally = void and without jurisdiction. 2. &n= bsp; Lastly, learned counsel= made a grievance of the fact that the documents and the material _______ the b= asis of charge-sheet demanded by the respondents was not applied to them and denied in black and white disabling them from putting a proper defense. 3. &n= bsp; For the change of Enqui= ry Officer, expressing total lack of confidence his integrity and impartiali= ty but the same was illegally declined and the department insisted upon enqu= iry by Hafiz Anees Ahmad, against whose responden= t Nasrullah Khan Wazir ha= d held departmental enquiry at the instance of NAB authority and recorded findin= gs against him. 4. &n= bsp; Learned Deputy Attorney= was unable to meet this vital argument destroying the foundations of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents in the show cause notices/charge-sheets issued to the respondents were essentially based up= on the statement of fact and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry constit= uted by t Armed Forces. 5. &n= bsp; The Tribunal has treate= d this fact as a mere irregularity, we do not think that the proceedings initiat= ed against the respondents by the Force Commander under the provisions of Pakistan Army Act could be clothed with sanctity or lawful authority. Evidently, there can be no escape from the conclusion though tentatively, that the respondents were not subject to the provisions of Pakistan Army = Act as no material has been placed on record to the contrary. 6. &n= bsp; There appears to be no justification or a valid ground for appointment of Hafiz Anees Ahmed, Director, Enquiry Wing, Central Board of Revenue to act as Enquiry Officer against respondent Nasrullah Khan Wazir. This respondent, at the earliest possible opportunity, had taken exception to the impartiality of this off= icer enquiry conducted by this respondent against the said Enquiry Officer at = the instance of NAB authorities. In the face of direct, substantial and documentary objection to the appointment of a particular Enquiry Officer,= it would always be just, fair and proper to appoint an independent and impar= tial enquiry officer to investigate into the charge rather than the insist upon the nomination of a particular person. It is always necessary, in the interest of justice, fair play and transparency of t proceedings to have the enquiry conducted by an officer of uncontroversial reputation and a person of independent nature. Since the respondent had expressed complete lack of confidence in Hafiz Anees= Ahmad, it is difficult to place much reliance on his findings and, in our view, the Tribunal neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily in not relying upon such report. 7. &n= bsp; Even on merits of the c= ase, it may be observed that material witness did not support the allegations against the respondents except Sepoy Fakhar Hussain, who him= self was an accomplice. His role, interest and tainted evidence, coupled with the admission that he had been paid Rs.100,000/- b= y way of illegal gratification to depose against the respondents, rendered his position highly controversial and unworthy of any credit. Suffice it to observe that the Tribunal, being a court of fact as well as law, took into consideration all the pros and cons of the cases against the respondents = in minute details and, after application of judicial mind, came to the conclusion that charge against the respondents was not proved according to law and was, therefore, justified in striking down departmental action. <= /span> 8. &n=
bsp;
Leave refused.
|
||||||
|
2. |
Appeal No.920(K)CE of 2002 - ZAHIR SHAH Vs. 2005 AC 128 Before N=
azar
Muhammad Shaikh and Qaz=
i Muhammad Hussain
Siddiqui, Members Federal Service
Tribunal, Appeal No.920(K)=
CE of
2002 allowed on 6.5.2004 ZAHIR SHAH --- A=
ppellant versus 1. &n= bsp; The learned Counsel for= the appellant strenuously arguing the appeal stated that there were no rules under which Inquiry Officer could be penalized for any lapses conducted during his conduct of inquiry and in this regard he relied on the ruling reported in 2002 PLC (CS) 1521 in the case of Sultan Azam v. Government of Punjab where the Hon’ble Justice Amir Alam Khan of Lahore High Court h= eld as under:- &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; "5. &= nbsp; It would be noted that = the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for misconducting= the inquiry by not consulting and collecting any record or the relevant evidence having bearing on the case. It is further alleged that the petitioner had admitted before the Deputy Secretary (Tech.) that the inqu= iry report was not drafted by him. The two charges leveled against the petiti= oner are pertinently directed against his conduct as Inquiry Officer which cou= ld, at the most, entail an order for de novo inquiry or the report submitted = in that regard could be set aside by the authorized officer but it is nowhere provided under the law to issue him a charge-sheet in that regard for not acted as a judicial officer and conducted the inquiry as such…..= 221; 2. &n= bsp; Appellant’s learn= ed Counsel also relied on t judgment of FST in Appeal No.941(K)CE/2002, dated 5.3.2004 wherein it was held as under:- &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; "5. &= nbsp; ….However, the ru= les do not provide for disciplinary action against an Inquiry Officer for his failure to conduct enquiry in a proper manner. The standard procedure in = such cases is that the competent authority re-assigns the enquiry to another officer to hold de novo proceedings …..” 3. &n= bsp; The appellant suffer fr= om another infirmity i.e. inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant a= long with Show-Cause Notice which is mandatory and in this regard cited ruling reported in PLD 181 SC’176. 4(M). He further pointed out that= the appellant order rejecting appellant’s Departmental Appeal was a non-speaking order which is in violation of Section 24-A of General Claus= es Act, 1897 and the ruling reported in 2000 PLC (CS) 857. 5(M). He further argued that same authority cannot review its own order and in this regard relied on the ru= ling reported in 1987 PLC (CS) 875. 6. = ; The standard procedure in such cases is that the inquiry is ordered to be conducted de novo. The judgment of the Lahore High Court cited by the lea= rned Counsel for the appellant is also very relevant and the law laid down the= rein still holds good. = ; The perusal of the above order clearly indicated that it does not give reason= for disregarding appellant’s defense while imposing major penalty of demotion to a lower post. This is a serious lapse which is in violation of section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellate order which rejecting appellant’s Departmental Appeal which is also reproduced hereunder = was also indicate that it is not a speaking order in terms of section 24-A ib= id. |
||||||
|
3. |
2005 S C M R 1=
802 -
NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN and others Vs. ENGIENEER0IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q., RAWLAPINDI 2005 S C M R 1802 [Supreme Court o=
f Present: Nazim And Muhammad Nawaz=
Abbasi JJ NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN a=
nd
others ----Petitioners versus ENGIENEER0IN-CHI=
EF,
G.H.Q., RAWLAPINDI and 2 others---
Respondents 1-M Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, l= earned counsel for the petitioner in C.P. 1229-K of 2002, has raised a number of grounds in support of this petition and most of these grounds pertained to the appraisal of record involving the factual controversy but we without going into the controversial question of facts, would prefer to attend the question of law raised before us in support of these petitions. The first question raised by the learned counsel was that the Tribunal, after heari= ng the arguments in the appeals on 18.10.2001 reserved the judgment and announced it on 3.10.2002 with a delay of about one year, whereas this Co= urt in a similar situation in Iftikhar-ud-Din Haider Gardezi V. Central Bank of India Ltd.1996 SCMR 669 = having treated the delay of eight months in announcement of judgment not proper, remanded the case to the High Court for rehearing and decision afresh. 2-M Tribunal must announcement of judgment within reasonable time but the mere delay in announcement of judgment, would not be considered sufficient to set aside= the same and remand the case if no prejudice was caused to any party on the merits. 6. &n= bsp; = ; The main contention of = the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of these petitions, was th= at the Inquiry Officer in utter disregard of rule 6 of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 proceeded with the inquiry and instead of recording= the statements of the petitioners in narrative forms, recorded the same in question and answer from in violation of the law on the subject (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,= 1984). Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners having been put incriminat= ing questions were compelled to admit their guilt in replies to these questio= ns and except these admissions of the petitioners in the statements made by = them before the Inquiry Officer, there was no evidence direct or circumstantia= l, to connect them with the alleged transaction of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds. The learned counsel added that the single witn= ess produced by the department before the Inquiry Officer, made a general statement on the basis of hearsay knowledge which would have no evidentia= ry value and the Inquiry Officer, only on the basis of inadmissible admissio= n of the petitioners, held the guilty of the charges.
3. &n= bsp; = ; The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has been made applicable to all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings before any Court, Tribunal or Authority exercising such powers or jurisdiction but in a departmental inquiry, the strict application of rule of evidence is not the requiremen= t of law and an Inquiry Officer need not to follow the method of recording the statement of a person by a regular Court or a Tribunal established under = the law, therefore, the manner of recording the statement of the petitioner b= y the Inquiry Officer in question and answer form, would not render their statements inadmissible in evidence. In the departmental inquiry, the statement of a witness or an accused official is not recorded on oath, therefore, it was not necessary for the Inquiry Officer to record the statements of the petitioners in narrative form and their statements reco= rded by the Inquiry Officer in question and answer from the containing their admissions of misappropriation of Government funds were admissible in evidence which could safely be relied upon as conclusive proof of their guilt. Learned counsel has not been able to show us from the record that = the admissions made by the petitioners in their relies to the questions put to them by the Court of Inquiry, were obtained throu= gh coercion and were not voluntary. It may be seen that the law does not emphasizes for the strict application of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to the departmental inquiries = rather the applicability of general principles of law of evidence would sufficie= ntly meet the ends of justice, therefore, the objection regarding the method of recording the statements of the petitioners would be of no significance.<= /span> 4. &n= bsp; = ; Must provide fair chanc= e to the accused official of cross-examination to the witnesses and production= of evidence in rebuttal but the Inquiry Officer is not required to strictly observe requirement of the procedural law in manner as is followed by the regular Courts ad Tribunals established under law. = ; Since no specific method is provided in law for recording the statement of pers= on by the Inquiry Officer, therefore, the manner in which the statements of = the petitioners were recorded, was not in violatio= n of law. 5. &n= bsp; = ; It is also not requirem= ent of law that department must produce large number of witnesses in support of = the allegation rather evidence of sole witness or admission of an accused official, can be considered sufficient to prove the charge. The perusal of the statements of the petitioners made by them before the Inquiry Officer, would show that they consciously and voluntarily admitted their involveme= nt in the transactions without any outside pressure or influence and their admissions having been found correct on the record, would alone be suffic= ient to fix their responsibility, therefore, no other evidence was required to prove the charge of misappropriation of funds. 6. &n= bsp; = ; The contention of the l= earned counsel that no evidence was brought on record to proved the manner of embezzlement of Government funds or the quantum of loss caused to the Gov= ernment exchequer and without proving these essential facts, the petitioners could not be held responsible for embezzlement, has no substance. The perusal of statement of petitioners and the witness would show that they were responsible for completing the process of the passing of the bills for the payment of the store items and they were also involved in making the paym= ents whereas the physical verification of the store and insp0ection of record revealed that no such items were actually purchased and thus, loss caused= to the Government was sufficiently proved on record. 7. = ; The petitioners were found guilty of the charge by the Inquiry Officer and the competent authority having gone through the record, agreed with the findi= ng of Inquiry Officer and further the Tribunal also having found them guilty= of the charges, dismissed their appeals, therefore, we in the given facts and circumstances of the case would take no exception to the concurrent findi= ngs of three forums, qua the guilt of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to satisfy us that the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in the present petitions was either suffering from any legal defect or factual infirmity or that any other point was involved in these petitions calling for interference of this Court. |
||||||
|
4. |
Appeal =
No.307
(K) (CS)/2002 - KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. 2005
TD (Service) 625 Before Qazi
Muhammad Hussain Siddiqu=
i
and Rashid Ali Mirza, Members, Federal
Service Tribunal ( Appeal No.307 (K)
(CS)/2002 accepted on 17.6.2004. KHADIM
HUSSAIN ----- Appellant versus 1. &n= bsp; In the first show-cause notice dated 5.12.2001 the charge of corruption has been leveled against = the Appellant on the basis of the minor punishments imposed upon the Appellant between the years 1982 to 1996 and average ACRs for the years 1989 to 199= 2, 1995, 1996 and 1989, but the minor punishments, as per Railways Rules, ha= ving lapsed after two years, lose their force and cannot be used against the Appellant for supporting the general allegations of corruption without any specific instance of corruption committed by the Appellant. 2. &n= bsp; The average ACRs are al= so of no help to the respondent, bringing home the charge of corruption and inefficiency to the Appellant. 3. &n= bsp; Admittedly the Appellan= t was promoted as Sub-Inspector in the year 2000. This fact cuts at the very ro= ot of the allegations of inefficiency against the Appellant. These views are supported by the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the Appella= nt. 4. &n= bsp; The settled law is that= the Respondent-Authority is empowered to dispense with holding of inquiry aga= inst the Appellant but the dispensing of the inquiry must be based on sound reasons and that should not have been done on the basis of whimsical and frivolous reasons. 5. &n= bsp; Secondly, in case of ma= jor penalty, a regular inquiry is must and it could be dispensed with only if case against the Appellant was based on unimpeachable documents or admiss= ion of the appellant. 6. &n= bsp; The Appellant was _____= __ deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses putting up h= is defense in the inquiry proceedings. 7. &n= bsp; Charges of corruption a= nd inefficiency have been proved by the Respondents against the appellant by= any wincing or cogent evidence. |
||||||
|
5. |
Appeal No.131 of 2002 - SARDAR AHMED SIYAL =
Vs.
GOVERNOR OF SINDH, 2005 PLC (C.S.) 263 [Sindh Service Tribunal] Before Justice (Rtd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman,=
Yosuf Ali Mirza, Member=
-I and Nur Ahmad Khan, Member-II SARDAR AHMED SIYAL versus GOVERNOR OF SINDH, Appeal No.131 of 2002, decided 1st September, 200=
3. 1. &n= bsp; The appellant vehemently denied the allegations and explained his position an<= /span> din such an eventuality it was incumbent upon the department to order for conducting regular enquiry as it was not the case of adopting shortest procedure of issuance of show cause/final show-cause notice. 2. &n= bsp; No doubt an authorized officer has discretion to decide whether in disciplinary proceedings agai= nst a civil servant in response to his reply to the charge-sheet, a regular inquiry should be held or not, but that is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. It has been consistently held by the Honorable Supreme Cou= rt that the above discretion is not controlled by any precondition or guidel= ine but nevertheless this discretion like all other discretion is to be exerc= ised fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously with the object= to deny the civil servant the right of fair defense. So, if the charge is founded on admitted documents/facts, no full-fledged enquiry is required.= 3. &n= bsp; But if the charge is ba= sed on disputed questions of fact, a civil servant cannot be denied the regular enquiry, as the same cannot be resolved without recording evidence and providing opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the witnesses. In s= uch a matter if findings of fact are recorded without recording any evidence,= the same will be based on surmises and conjectures, which will have no evidentiary value as to warrant imposition of any punishment on the civil servant concerned. 4. &n= bsp; In our humble view, the nature of the charges and its denial by the appellant could not be consid= ered such a matter as could be decided without holding a regular enquiry, rath= er in the circumstances of the instant case the ends of justice would have served only if a proper enquiry prescribed in rule 6 of the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. |
||||||
|
6. |
Civil Appeal No.249 Of 2006 - Taimur Jamshed Chughtai Vs. Se=
cretary
/ Chairman, CBR and another IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF (APP= ELLATE JURISDICTION) &nbs= p; &= nbsp; PRESENT: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dog= ar &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz A= bbasi CIVIL APPEAL NO.249 of 2006 (On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 22.1.2004 passed IN appeal No.273(P)CS/02 Ex-A= ssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ………… Appellant Versus Secret= ary / Chairman, CBR and another …………Respondents For the
Appellant : =
For the respondents: = ; Mr. Mahmood A.Sheikh,= ASC Date o= f Hearing: = ; <= /span>24.8.2006 1.
It is pertinent to note=
that
Mr. Naseer Ahmad, Director, Directorate of Tr=
aining
& Research (Income Tax), 2.
Moreover, even opportun=
ity of
cross examining the witnesses, was not provided to the appellant during i=
nquiry.
Irrespective of above, three jewelers who appeared as witnesses, gave a j=
oint
statement and were not examined individually which is also not in accorda=
nce
with law. The hand-writing expert also negated the allegation that the
documents marked flag “A,B,C,D,E&F&#=
8221;
did not contain signatures of appellant and were forged. In such
circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the case for departmental
enquiry a fresh to be conducted strictly in accordance with law by the |
||||||
|
7. |
Appeal No.445(L)(C.S)/2002 - Zahoor
Ahmad Shaheen Vs. CBR Judgment
Sheet IN =
THE
FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal
No.445(L)(C.S)/2002 Date of Institution : 24.06.= 2002 Date of Heaing = ; : = ; 01.04.2006 Date of Judgment : 01= .04.2006 Appellant : = ; Zahoor Ahmad Shaheen Respondents : C=
entral
Board of Revenue, Before = ; &n= bsp; : = ; Mr Jehan Zaib Burki, and = ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Justice (R) Mansur Alamgir Qazi, Members. Present =
; &n=
bsp; : =
; Appellant
with &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Irfan Masood Sh.,= Counsel for the respondents with &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Muhammad Arshad Javed,
Dy. Supdt, &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; as Departmental Representative. 1. Detailed arguments on merits of the case were heard from both the parties. However= , at the time of writing of the judgment, we have noticed that the charge sheet against the appellant had been issued on 31.8.2000 under the E&D Rule= s, 1973. The entire subsequent proceedings were also held under the provisio= n of the same law. Neither the appellant nor the respondents pointed out that = the entire proceedings had been conducted under a wrong law. As a matter of f= act, the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had come into f= orce w.e.f. 27.5.2000. Under Section 11 of the sai= d Ordinance. |
||||||
|
8. |
Appeal No.876(R)(CS)/2002 - Safdar
Abbas Vs. CBR Judgment
Sheet IN =
THE
FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL Appeal
No.876(R)(CS)/2002 Date of Institution : 25.10.2002 Date of Hearing: 04.11.2003 Date of Judgment: 10.11.2003 APPELLANT: = ; &n= bsp; Safdar Abbas Respondent: =
; &n=
bsp; 1. =
; Central
Board of Revenue, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 2. =
; The
Controller of Customs, Collector of Customs Valuation,
Customs House, &= nbsp; BE= FORE: = ; Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Mr. Muhammad Zubair Kidwai, Members.= &= nbsp; Pr= esent: = ; &n= bsp; Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate for the appellant. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Syed Alamdar Raza, Advocate for the respondents alongwith Mr. Mohammad Abbas, as departmental represent= ative.
|
||||||
|
9. |
Appeal No.129(K) of 1994 - HAJI MAQBOOL AHM=
ED Vs.Chairman, CBR and others Judgment
Sheet IN =
THE
FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal
No.129(K) of 1994 Date of Institution 7-9-1994 Date of hearing: = 2-7-1995 APPELLANT: = ; HAJI MAQBOOL AHMED RESPONDENTS 1.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
; Secretary,
Establishment Division, =
; &n=
bsp; =
; 2. =
; Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, =
; &n=
bsp; =
; 3. =
; Chairman,
Central Board of Revenue, = ; BEFORE: = ; Mr. Justice (R) Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chaiman, and = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Member = ; PRESENT: = ; Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate, = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; alongwith appellant. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel for the Gov= t. alongwith M/s Zulfiqar = Ahmed, Second Secretary, CBR and Ghayyur Abbas, Assistant, Estt. Division. 1M. We are not inclined to agree with thin submission of the learned counsel as apparently the impugned notification was communicated to t appellant on 9-4-1994, which might have taken a couple of days in reaching its destination. Although a copy of the said notification appears to have been endorsed to the appellant on 19-3-1994 yet nothing has been brought to our notice that it was mailed on the same day. The appellant would not have remained negligent or oblivious about his removal from service for a long time but since the Respondent-Department has utterly failed to produce an= y documentary proof to the effect that the impugned notification dated 19-3-1994 was communicated to the appellant to the same day or before 9-4-1994, therefo= re, we have no option but to rely upon the assertion of the learned counsel f= or the appellant that the impugned notification was communicated on 9-4-1994= . We are, therefore, of the view that the departmental appeal was filed within= the period of limitation and accordingly the objection of the learned counsel= for the Respondent-Department is repelled.
|
||||||
|
10. |
Appeal No.75(P)CE/2005 - SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN =
Vs.
Chairman, WAPDA Judgment
Sheet IN =
THE
FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL Appeal
No.75(P)CE/2005 alongwith=
MP.
= ; APPELLANT: = ; SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN &= nbsp; Re= spondents: = ; Chairman, WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority), WAPDA House Lahore and oth= ers. &= nbsp; Be= fore: = ; &n= bsp; Mr. AbdulHafiz Mirza,= and &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi= , Memebrs &= nbsp; Pr= esent: = ; &n= bsp; Appellant alongwith Syed Mir Muhammad Adovcate. = ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Shahid Hussain, A= dvocate for the respondents alongwith Mr. Masood Ali, Deputy Director ,WA= PDA, DR. 1. &n= bsp; The learned counsel for= the appellant further argued that no material or evidence has been placed on record to indicate the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. No such reasons have been given in the show cause notice itself either. He conten= ded that the words ‘on investigation’ in the statement of allegat= ions indicate that some sort of preliminary or fact finding inquiry was carried out but neither its findings have been made available nor a copy of the report has been annexed to the show cause notice. 2. &n= bsp; The learned counsel for= the appellant stated that the appellant denied the charges. Still, no proper inquiry was held. 3. &n=
bsp;
Dates of appointment/po=
sting
period under investigation must be taken into account correctly. <=
/p>
|
||||||
|
11. |
Civil Appeals No.1747 to 1753 of 2005 & C.P.No.1023 of 2=
006 -
Collector Customs Sales Tax & Central Excise, In the Supreme Court of (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas, ACJ Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk= Civil Appeals No=
.1747 to
1753 of 2005 & C.P.No.1023 of 2=
006 (On appeal from the
judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29.01.2005 passed in Appeals No.389(L)CS to
395(L)CS of 2002 and judgment dated 30.08.2006 passed in Appeal No.282(L)CS/2002
respectively) Collec= tor Customs Sales Tax & Central Excise=
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; (in
C.As No.1747 to 1753) Member= (Admn) CBR & another = &nb= sp; Petitioner Versus Muhammad Nav= ed Iqbal &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Respondent (in C.A.1747) For the Appellants: =
; &n=
bsp; Hafiz
(in C.As 1747 to 1753) For the Petitioners: = ; &n= bsp; Raja Abdul Ghafoor, ASC/AOR (in C.P. 1023) For the respondents: = ; &n= bsp; Mr. Iftikhar Hussain = Gillani, ASC. (in C.As 1747 to 1753) = ; &n= bsp; Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR For the respondent: = ; &n= bsp; Mr. M. Munir Paracha,= ASC. (in C.P. 1023) &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR Date of hearing: &nbs= p; 25.4.2007 1. &n= bsp; It was further maintain= ed that there was no evidence of corruption or wrongful loss to the public exchequer as no customs duty was levyable on = the import and export in question; that the respondents acted “in good faith in the best interest of nation as falcons were reportedly in use of royal family and any slight negligence or mistake on our part could have resulted in a serous situation for the Government of Pakistan. = 2. &n= bsp; Learned counsel for the appellant Customs Department on specific query of the Court has not denied that the import/export of Falcons in question was not liable to the levy = of customs duty and there has not been any loss to public exchequer either. = = 3. &n= bsp; There is no cavil to the proposition that in terms of section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, a regular enquiry = can be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded. There is nothing on record = that competent authority passed a well reasoned order dispensing with regular enquiry. Moreover, it is by now a settled principle of law that were an official is being charged on serious allegations entailing factual enquiry and a major penalty of dismissal from service is proposed, a civil servan= t is entitled to a regular enquiry, recording of evidence and providing the official facing the enquiry a fair opportunity to explain his position. <= /span> |
||||||
|
12. |
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.230-Q OF 1999 - Muhammad Salim
Qureshi Vs. Chairman, CBR IN THE =
SUPREME
COURT OF Appellate Jurisdiction = ; &n= bsp; Present : = ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir = Jehangiri = ; &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry CRIMINAL PETITION
NO.230-Q OF 1999 ( On appeal from the
judgment dated 16-3-1999 of the High Court of Balochistan, Muhammad Sal= im Qureshi = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; ……… Petitioner Versus Chairman C.B.R. and others = ; &n= bsp; = ; ………Respondents For the petitioner: = &nb= sp; Mr. Khushnood Ahmad, ASC = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Mehta K.N. Kohli, AOR For the respondents: = ; Mr. K. N. Kohli, DAG Date o= f hearing: = ; &n= bsp; 7-8-2000 1. &n=
bsp; The
law is by now settled that even if a civil servant is acquitted from the
criminal charges, for embezzlement of specified amount, the plea of the c=
ivil
servant before the Service Tribunal against his dismissal that he having =
been
acquitted from criminal charges, therefore, the order of his removal from
service, which was based on the departmental proceedings, deserved to be =
set
aside was repelled by this Court. Reference can be made to : (i) the Deputy Inspector General of Police, |
||||||
|
13. |
2001 S C M R 1446 - SHAFI MUHAMMAD MUGHAL Vs. SECRETARY,
ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others 2001 S C M R 144=
6 (Supreme Court of Present
Nazim Hussain SHAFI MUHAMMAD MUGHAL …….. Appellant versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others …….. Respondent Constitutional Petit=
ion
for Leave to Appeal No.39-Q of 2000, decided=
on 17th July, 2000. = 1. &n= bsp; General reputation of t= he civil servant in the past was not satisfactory, rather it was poor --- Wh= ere there was no material brought on record to substantiate that the vigilance report was false, Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders of = the authorities--- |
||||||
|
14. |
Appeal No.138(R)CS/2007 – Shahzad=
Khizer Vs. Establishment Division and another Judgment Sheet IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal
No.138®CS/2007 Date of Institution : &= nbsp; 07.03.2007 Date of Hearing : = ; = 04.03.2008 Date of Judgment: = ; &n= bsp; 24.03.2008 ******** APPELLANT : = ; &n= bsp; Shahzad Khizer RESPONDENTS: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Establishment Division and another ********* BEFORE : &n= bsp; Mr. Justice (R) Tanvir Bashi= r Ansari, Chairman &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Syed Bilal Ahmed, Membe= r PRESENT: &n= bsp; Mr. Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri<= /span>, Advocate for appellant &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Syed Shahid Hussain, Counsel for respondents. 1. = ; We are nevertheless conscious of the fact that the Enquiry Officer after concluding the inquiry recommended the major penalty of removal from serv= ice. The Show Cause Notice which followed also proposed the imposition of major penalty of removal from service. It was thus not in accordance with the n= orms of justice for the competent authority to have unilaterally enhanced the punishment to that of dismissal from service. This is more so as no Show Cause Notice in respect of enhancement of punishment was given to the appellant. = ; In view of the above while upholding the findings of the Enquiry Officer we dismiss the appeal so however that the major penalty of dismissal from service is converted into removal from service as was recommended by the Enquiry Officer. |
||||||
|
15. |
Appeal No.242(R)CS/2003 - NAUSHAD ALI KHAN Vs. Secretary, Re=
venue
Division/Central Board of Revenue & another Judgment Sheet IN FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal No.242(R)=
CS/2003
APPELLANT: &nbs= p; NAUSHAD ALI KHAN RESPONDENT: &nbs= p; Secretary, Revenue Division/Central Board of Revenue & &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; another Before: &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Mr. Abdur Razzaque an= d Mr. Abdul Rashid Baloch, &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Members= Present: &n= bsp; = ; Appell= ant in person &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Syed Shahid Hussain, Advocate for the respondents with &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = Mr. G.M. Riaz, Second Secretary, CBR. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; departmental representative 1. &n= bsp; As per General Financial Rules (GFRs) Nos. 11 & 12, the Head of the department is responsible = for financial order and economy at every step and the Commissioner of Income = Tax, who was the head of the Commissionerate in the case, has been exonerated of all the charges and thus holding the respond= ent wholly responsible was discriminatory and unjust. He has, therefore, pray= ed that the impugned Notification about the penalty of ‘Censure” dated 30.11.2002 may be annulled. 2. &n= bsp; There is no denial of t= he fact that Commissioner was the head of office of the Commissionerate and he was the sanctioning Authority/Controlling Officer. Since the Commissioner was exonerated in t similar inquiry vide order dated 12.11.2= 002, the appellant who was the subordinate and had simply complied with the direction of his senior officer, also deserved to be treated at par, if n= ot leniently. 3. &n= bsp; In the Inquiry, officer= s are requested to make that in the inquiry report only the proven charges shou= ld be mentioned. e.g = if the inquiry initiated on account of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption a= nd in the end only inefficiency and misconduct has been proved than corrupti= on should be deleted. It has ___________in many cases where ___________ has = not been paid and the department lost the case. |
||||||
|
16. |
Appeal No.345 (R)CS/2001 - Muhammad Sha=
hzad
Zaheer Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on"> Judgment Sheet IN FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal No.345 (R=
)CS/2001
Appellant : = ; &n= bsp; Muhammad Shahzad Zaheer Respondent: =
; <=
/span>Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce, Before: &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Mr. Justice (R) Tanvir Bashi= r Ansari, Chariman = &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zaheer Ahmed, Members. Present: &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate for the Appellant= . &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Javid Aziz Sandhu= , Fedreal Counsel for Respondents &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; No.1 & 3 with Mr. Shahzad Iqbal Deputy Secretary, M/o Commerce, as departmental representative. &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Syed Shahid Hussain, Advocate for respondent No. 2 with Mr.Azhar <= span class=3DSpellE>Sajjad, Second Secretary, CBR as departmental Representative 1. &n=
bsp;
Subsequently, a show 2. &n= bsp; The appellant was dismi= ssed from service vide Notification dated 08.08.1998. He preferred a departmen= tal appeal on 07.09.1998 and as the same was not responded to, he preferred service appeal bearing No.9(R)/1999 before this Tribunal. While the appeal was pending adjudication, Notification No.20-ITE/2000, dated 18.01.2000 w= as issued by respondent No.2 whereby the appellant was reinstated in service with immediate effect and the intervening period was treated as leave admissible to him under the rules. Service Appeal No.9(R)/99 was conseque= ntly withdrawn by t appellant. 3. &n= bsp; The appellant submitted= his reply to the said show cause notice and besides denying the allegations o= nce again submitted that vide Notification dated 18.01.2000 the issue pertain= ing to the allegations had been settled when the appellant’s dismissal = from service was set aside and he was reinstated in service with immediate eff= ect. The issuance of t show cause notice was further assailed on ground that t= he issuance of show cause notice upon = the same allegations would amount to vexing the appellant twice for the same allegation. After giving the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing, the appellant was dismissed from government service vide original order/notification bearing No.4(3)/92-Admn.III, dated 09.07.2001 with immediate effect, under the provision of Government Servants ( Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. 4. &n= bsp; The learned Counsel for= the appellant further stressed that whatever the merits of t earlier order of dismissal, the same was set aside vide Notification dated 18.01.2000 wher= eby t appellant was reinstated in service and the intervening period was trea= ted as leave of the kind due. The said Notification did not state any reasons= for the reinstatement of the appellant nor did it indicate if a de novo inqui= ry in the same charges will be held. 5. &n= bsp; Preponderance of eviden= ce ignores the technical flaw in procedure.= |
||||||
|
17. |
Appeal No.297(K)/CS/2001 - Anees-ur-Reh=
man
Vs. Federation [Federal Serv=
ice
Tribunal, Appeal
No.297(K)/CS/2001 Date of Institution 22.10.2001 Date of Hearing 18.03.20=
08 Date of Judgment 19.03.2008 Appellant: =
; Anees-ur-Rehman s/o Bashir
Ahmed, Ex-DCIT, Resident of B-37, Block-13, Gulshan<=
/span>-e-Iqbal, Central Board of Revenue, ii) =
; The
Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Southern Region, Karachi, Income Tax=
Building,
Shahrah-e-Kamal <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Attaturk, Karachi =
; &n=
bsp; Before;
=
; Mr.
Saeed Ahmed Zaidi=
, and =
Mr.
Muhammad Javed Ashraf Hussain, Members =
; &n=
bsp; Present =
; Appellant
with Mr. Nauman Jamli,
Junior of =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Khalid Javed Khan, Advocate for the Appellant=
. =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
S.M. Iqbal Shah, Advocate and =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Asif Hussain Mangi, Counsel for respondents. JUDGMENT =
; &n=
bsp; 1. &n=
bsp; =
;
The
appellant next contended that he did not cause any loss of revenue as no
refund was issued. While it is correct that no refund was issued, the fact
remains that had his senior officers not been vigilant, the Appellant wou=
ld
have succeeded in issuing the refund as he had been persistently and
deliberately attempting to get the said bogus refunds issued. 2. =
; <=
/span>We
have perused the copies of record of inquiry proceedings maintained by
Inquiry Officer which shows that statement of Ghulam=
Hussain, Naib |
||||||
|
18. |
Civil Petitions No. 332 to 335 of 2008 - Member (ACE & S=
T) Federal Board of Revenue Vs. Muhammad A=
shraf
& others [Supre=
me
Court of Appellate
Jurisdiction =
; &n=
bsp; Present: =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Justice Abdul Hameed Dog=
ar,
HCJ =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Justice Ijaz-Ul-Hasan =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Justice CH.Ejaz Yousaf =
; &n=
bsp; Civil Petitions N=
o. 332
to 335 of 2008 (On appeal from the judgment dat=
ed
12.12.2007 of the Federal Service Tribunal, 239(L)/CS, 240(L)/CS and 241(L)/=
CS
of 2002) Member
(ACE & ST) Federal
Board of Revenue, =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span>(in
all cases) Versus Muhammad
Ashraf &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; [In
CP 332/08] Dilawar Hussain ` =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; [In
CP 333/08] Mushtaq Ahmed &=
nbsp; ` =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; [In
CP 334/08] Shahid Mehmood .` &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; [In
CP 335/08] For
the petitioners &n=
bsp; Raja
Muhammad Bashir, Sr. ASC =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
M.S.Khattak, AOR For
the respondents &n=
bsp; =
; Not
represent Date
of hearing =
&nb=
sp; 28.3.2008 ORDER<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> 1.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
; <=
/span>The
Authority after going through the report of Inquiry Officer and defense of
respondents vide order dated 24.4.2001 imposed major penalty and section
4(1)(b)(i) of the Government Servants (Effici=
ency
and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to the extent of reduction to five stages in =
time
scale upon respondent Muhammad Ashraf,
Superintendent and respondent Dilawar Hussain, Inspector. Whereas respondent Mushtaq Ahmed, Inspector was reverted to Head Clerk=
and
respondent Shahid Mahmoo=
d,
Deputy Superintendent was reverted to Inspector. (a)<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> The
penalty awarded to Mr. Muhammad Ashraf and Mr=
. Dilawar Hussain was mod=
ified
and reduced to two stages in time scale for a period of two years. (b)<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> The
penalty awarded to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed and Mr. =
Shahid Mahmood was orde=
red to
be effective only for a period of two years whereaft=
er
they shall stand restored to their original ranks. 2. &n=
bsp; =
;
These
petitions are barred by 6 days for which no plausible explanation has been
furnished. However, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners on
merits. “It was urged by the respondents that they would not press =
the
appeals on merit but prayed for modification in the penalties as the same
were harsh and they had been facing the agony of departmental proceedings=
for
more than seven years, which factor was considered as a mitigating
circumstance to lessen the punishment by the learned Tribunal. Much stress
was made upon examining the competency of impugned orders of the Authorit=
y on
the touchstone of Fundamental Rule 29(Applicable to members of services u=
nder
the rule-making control of the President wherein it is mentioned that if a
government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced =
to a
lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time –scale, the
authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it sha=
ll
be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone fu=
ture
increments and if so, to what extent. 3. =
; <=
/span>Admitted
the penalties imposed by the Authority upon respondents do not specify the
length of time and thus is in clear violation of Fundamental Rule 29.
“The penalty for indefinite period is not provided in law as such t=
he
impugned judgment whereby penalties awarded to the respondents were modif=
ied
and reduced to time as mentioned above was the proper approach in lawR=
21;.
Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned
judgment, which is maintained. The petitions being devoid of force are
dismissed and leave to appeal refused. |
||||||
|
19. |
Appeal No.44(P)/CS/2007 - Dr. Nasir Khan
Vs. Chairman, CBR & others [Federal Serv=
ice
Tribunal, Appeal
No.44(P)/CS/2007 Date of Institution 05.05.2007 Date of Hearing 01.04.20=
08 Date of Judgment 03.04.2008 Appellant: =
; &n=
bsp; Dr.
Nasir Khan Respondent:
=
; 1. =
; Prime
Minister of Secretary, Prime Minister̵=
7;s
Secretariat, =
3.=
Secretary
General, Revenue Division(Central Board of Re=
venue),
and Chairman Central Board of Revenue 4. &n=
bsp;
Chief
Management, Central Board of Revenue, =
; &n=
bsp; Before;
=
; Mr.
Justice (R) Tanvir Bashi=
r
Ansari,
Chairman and =
Mr.
Zaheer Ahmed, Member &=
nbsp; Pr=
esent; =
; Appellant
with Mr. Mushtaq Hussain=
Bhatti, Advocate Syed Shahid
Hussain, Standing Counsel for the ` =
; respondents. JUDGMENT =
; &n=
bsp; M-1 In view of the =
above
we feel that it is a clear case of discrimination under Article 25 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as thee was no reason to enh=
ance
the penalty proposed by the Inquiry Officer in the case of appellant who
should have been treated at par with Mr. S.T.R. Zaid=
i,
his co-accused. The factual position given in the impugned notification in
respect of the appellant is also faulty. The appeal is, therefore, accept=
ed
and the appellant is reinstated in service. The penalty of ‘removal
from service’ is converted into reduction by five increments in the
present time scale for a period of three years with all consequential back
benefits. |
||||||
|
20. |
C. No. D-750 of
2006 – Faiz Ahmed Vs. Secretary
Revenue Division Chairman CBR & other ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH C=
OURT
OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.
No. D-750 of 2006 Faiz Ahmed Vs Secreta=
ry
Revenue Division Chairman CBR & other 1. &n=
bsp;
For
Katcha Peshi. =
2.=
For
Hq of CMA No.2808/=
06 (U/S
151). 3. (C/A
& objection filed) (08.02.2007) Mr. Khalid Javed Khan & Rana <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Iqramullah, Advocates for the petitioner.<= o:p> =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
S.M. Iqbal Shah, Advocate for respondent. JUDGMENT 1. &n=
bsp;
It
may also be added that mere reputation for being corrupt as distinct from
actual corruption can form basis of disciplinary action under the Efficie=
ncy
and Disciplinary Rules but no action appears to have been initiated again=
st
the petitioner. 2. &n=
bsp;
Indeed
non proceedings on the basis of his reputation were initiated even fourte=
en
months after the decision of the selection board. We are therefore,
constrained to hold that the assessment made was without any logical and
sound basis and ought to be declared unlawful. |
||||||
|
21. |
Appeal No.265 (R)CS/2002 - Nasir=
Mehmood Khan Vs. Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairm=
an,
CBR Judgment Sheet IN FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal No.265 (R=
)CS/2002 Date of Institut=
ion
: 11.04.2002 Date of Hearing =
: 10.04.2003 Date of Judgment=
: 29.08.2003 =
; APPELLANT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Nasir Mehmood Khan RESPONDENT: 1.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
; Government
of 2. =
; Secretary,
Revenue Division/Chairman, CBR, Government of BEFORE: Mr. Hasan Raza Pasha and &nbs=
p; Mr.
Abdul Rashid Baloch, &nbs=
p; Members. PRESENT: Appellant with Mr.
Aurangzeb Mriza and Mian=
Inam-ul-Haq, Advocates. Mr. s. Alamdar JUDGMENT 2003 SCMR 251 = ; “There is no cavil to the proposition that the procedural irregularities in the financial institutions cannot be taken lightly and the officials responsi= ble for such irregularities must be proceeded against for an appropriate acti= on under the relevant rules by the competent authority. The perusal of rule = 2.28 supra would show that it is the duty of sanctioning authority to satisfy himself about the fulfillment of the requirement of the rules and in case= of failure, the said authority shall directly be responsible for violation of the rule in question. This is noticeable that the appellants were not cha= rged for committing the alleged irregularities for financial gain or that they extended favour to the l= oanees in violation of rules without the knowledge of Manger and the bank authorities under the directions of Prime Minister’s Secretariat vi= de letter dated 16.1.1995 exonerated Muhammad Ashraf, the then Manager of Gujar Khan Branch, from t= he allegation for which Muhammad Saleem, appella= nt in CA 80 of 2001, was dismissed from service. In the case of were not even proceeded against under the ADBP Officers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rul= es, 1975= . The perusal of record would show that no evidence was brought on the record to suggest that the concerned managers were misled and misguided in discharg= e of their duty by the appellants but the departmental authorities without tak= ing notice of negligence of managers who sanctioned the loans in violations of rule 2.28 of the Credit Manual, shifted the burden to their subordinates = through discrimination as the managers were either exonerated from the charge or = were not proceeded against at all. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent bank without distinguishing the collective responsibility of t= he appellants and the managers, has contended that since the concerned managers sanctioned the loans on t basis of recommendations made by the appellants, therefore, they would not be deem= ed to be responsible for the violation of the 2.28 of the Credit Manual. We = are afraid, the contentions has no force. The manager being in charge of the branch would ultimately be responsible for all affairs of the branch and neither could shift his responsibility to his subordinates nor can claim = any immunity from such responsibility on the ground that he while discharging= the functions of sanctioning authority was not supposed to undertake the exer= cise of scrutiny of documents. The manager in his capacity as sanctioning authority would not only share the responsibility in such irregularities rather his responsibility would be greater to that of his subordinate and therefore, the departmental action only against the appellants for violat= ion of rule 2.28 of the Credit Manual on the basis of irregularities mentioned the statement of allegation, was not fair and was discriminatory. = |
||||||
|
22. |
Appeal No.214 (K)CS/1998 - Ali Ak=
bar Deepar Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Judgment Sheet IN FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal No.214 (K=
)CS/1998 JUDGMENT Date
of hearing: 22-6-1998 APPELLANT: =
; Ali
Akbar Deepar RESPONDENTS: Chairman, Centr=
al
Board of Revenue, =
; &n=
bsp; BEFORE: Mr. Muham=
mad Raza Khan, and =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Noor Muhammad Magsi,
Members. =
; &n=
bsp; PRESENT: Appellant in person <=
span
class=3DSpellE>alongwith Mr. M. Nasim,
Advocate. =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
; Mr.
Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing counsel alongwith &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Mr.
M. Mukkaram, D.D. Income Tax, departmental re=
p. &nbs= p; Although the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the appellant of the main charge and restricted his finding to the inefficiency only, the show cause notice contains the same wording of the charge sheet that the charges have been proved. The concerned officer has not cared to go through the inquiry rep= ort and the evidence or to apply his mind. Therefore, it proves the argument = on behalf of the appellant that the detailed reply to the shoe cause notice given by the appellant that the detailed reply to the show cause notice g= iven by the appellant was also neither perused nor considered. |
||||||
|
23. |
Appeal No.109 (R)CS/2003 - Fazle=
Kareem
Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Judgment Sheet IN FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, Appeal No.109 (R=
)CS/2003 Date of institut=
ion: 31.01.2003 Date of Hearing:=
17.07.2003 Date of Judgment=
: 31.07.2003 APPELLANT: =
; Fazale Kareem RESPONDENTS: Chairman, Centr=
al
Board of Revenue, =
; &n=
bsp; BEFORE: Mr. Nazar Mohammad Shaikh a=
nd =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Muhammad Zubair Kidwai,
Members PRESENT: Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate =
for
Appellant &nbs=
p; Syed Alamdar Raza, Advocate for Respondent with D.R. Mr. M. Shabbir 2nd Secretary. &n=
bsp; However, the Appellant in his concluding statement before the
Inquiry Officer which was attached as Exhibit-XXXIII with the inquiry rep=
ort
showed his complete satisfaction in regard to providing opportunity of
hearing and defence. In view of this statemen=
t of
the Appellant made before the Inquiry Officer, the objection raised by the
Appellants Counsel on the proceedings of the inquiry are of no consequence
and, as such, we do not assign weight age to these objections. |