Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 344‑R of 1985, decided on 12th October,1985.
(On appeal from judgment dated 30‑5‑1985 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.166 (R) of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑ Misconduct‑‑Removal from service‑‑All questions raised in petition properly considered and adequately dealt with in order of Service Tribunal whereto no exception called for‑‑No question of law of public importance arising either‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1985.
The petitioner, who is a young man, joined in March, 1982 as Sub‑Inspector Technical Wing in the F.I.A. but only a month thereafter while still under training committed a misconduct and the competent authorities found him disentitled for continuing in the said service and, accordingly, ordered that he be removed from office.
This sad end has come about in the following circumstances. A sister of the petitioner (Miss Nasim Akhtar) was a teacher in the Government Girls High School Rawalpindi. Later on, an order was passed transferring her from the said School. This step was not liked by her. The petitioner herein, her brother, thereupon visited the Office of the District Education Officer (Women's Wing) Rawalpindi for this purpose representing himself as "Inspector" of the F.I. A . and also misbehaved with the officials on duty there.
A preliminary probe into the incident was held, by an Assistant Director, F. I. A . , who opined that there was substance in the allegations made against the petitioner whereupon the 'Authorised Officer decided to proceed against him under rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. This prescribes the shorter procedure in disciplinary cases, in that the formal inquiry is dispensed with and action can be taken after the issuance of a show‑cause notice to the accused‑officer and consideration of the explanation submitted thereto by him.
The "authorised officer", who also heard the petitioner, besides taking into consideration his explanation, found him guilty of misconduct and opined that he was unsuitable for retention in the F.I.A. He further observed that though the petitioner deserved the major penalty of dismissal the lesser punishment of removal from service may be imposed on account of his youth.
The "authority" namely, the Director‑General, F.I.A. again heard the petitioner. However, he agreed with the conclusion reached by the "authorised officer" that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner stood substantiated and that he was not suitable for the F.I.A. His final conclusion may be reproduced below:‑
"It may be mentioned that accused Sub‑Inspector Javed Ahmad Bhatti joined as Sub‑Inspector in March, 1982 and in April, 1982 he got into trouble. Facts constituting the charge of misconduct against him show that he is unstable and in disciplined. He, obviously, lacks sense of responsibility and has not adapted himself to the behaviour requirements of F.I.A. Even otherwise, what I have heard of him, confirms this conclusion about his sense of lack of responsibility and discipline. I, accordingly, am inclined to agree with the observation of the 'Authorised Officer' i.e. Director/ Technical, F.I.A. that he is not a suitable person to be retained in F.I.A."
He was accordingly ordered to be removed from service with immediate effect.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad to challenge it.
The learned Service Tribunal, in an elaborate and well‑reasoned order, found that the petitioner had "been rightly held guilty and justifiably punished". The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, while assailing the order of removal passed against the petitioner, pressed the same contentions that he had earlier raised before the Service Tribunal. All his objections have been properly considered and adequately dealt with in the order of the Service Tribunal and we are in agreement with its conclusion.
No question of law of public importance arises in this case. The petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer