Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 36‑R of 1983, decided on 18th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 13‑12‑1982 announced on 19‑12‑1.982 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, in Service Appeal No. 146 (R)/1981).

‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Civil service‑ Dismissal ‑Petitioner guilty of misconduct on charge of attended un authorised meeting‑Petitioner being aware of charge and having defended himself, failure to supply copy of report, held, would not make order bad‑No prejudice occasioned to petitioner in circumstances‑Meeting whether authorised or not a question of fact having been determined by authorities below ‑‑ Supreme Court declined to go into such question and dismissed petition.

Petitioner in person.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th October, 1983.

‑The appellant holding the post of Population Officer was dismissed from service by the competent authority. He was charge‑sheeted for misconduct for having attended an unauthorized meeting of the employees of the Population Division on 18th August, 1980, in defiance of the instructions of the. Director‑General, Population Office, Punjab. This fact was held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer before whom he admitted his participation. The Inquiry officer also gave a finding that the meeting was held in defiance of the instructions of the Director General.

2. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, but as he failed to receive a reply, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The Tribunal although holding that the failure on the part of the Inquiry Officer not to supply him with the report was established, yet it was an irregularity as no prejudice had occasioned to the petitioner. In holding so the Tribunal reiterated that even before it the petitioner admitted that he had participated in the meeting, which established his guilt. As for the unauthorized nature of the meeting the Tribunal upheld the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. In the result, as it was of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal was severe it substituted it by that of compulsory retirement, thus making him eligible to "pensioner or terminal benefits as the case may be".

3. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no exception can be taken to the decision of the Tribunal as there was no doubt that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in having attended an unauthorized meeting. The failure to supply the copy of the report would not make the order bad as he was aware of the charge and had defended himself in regard to it. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in saying that no prejudice bad occasioned to him. The petitioner also attempted to challenge that the meeting was not unauthorized, but this question is one of fact and the authorities below having held that it was unauthorized, we would not go into this question. There is, therefore, no merit in this is petition, which is dismissed.

M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.