' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Ghulam Qasim Khan, Director (P.M.E.), Ministry of Population Welfare, Islamabad seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 16-5-2003 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby his departmental appeal was rejected but the punishment, with reference to F.R.29, was modified under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. His reduction to the lowest time scale in BPS-19 was conditioned to prevail for a period of three years.
2. The petitioner was charged and a regular inquiry was conducted on the following charges:-- "(i) He failed to perform managerial/supervisory duties efficiently and effectively while handling of 219,000 injectables identified for replacement to Messrs Pharmacia and Upjohn.
(ii) He failed to perform comply with the instructions of D.G. (M&S) regarding dispatch of dried Depo-Provera injectables to Messrs Pharmacia and Upjohn, Islamabad for replacement after a lapse of 28 days.
(iii) He failed to ensure the dispatch of necessary documents with the delivery of injectables to Messrs Pharmacia and Upjohn, Islamabad, when sent for replacement.
(iv) He failed to inquire/confirm from Messrs Pharmacia and Upjohn, Islamabad, even after having received no confirmation/ acknowledgement of the receipt of the injectables for a period of two months after their dispatch.
(v) He failed to initiate any disciplinary action against the responsible officer/official who had misplaced/lost the relevant file, which contained the record/documents of the delivery/ dispatch of injectables to Messrs Pharmacia and Upjohn, Islamabad.
(vi) He misappropriated 28.236 vials of Depo-Provera injectables resulting a loss of Rs,1,129,400 to the Government of Pakistan."
3. The Inquiry Committee recorded following observations against the petitioner:- "(3) Mr. Ghulam Qasim Khan, Director-CW&S, was also not involved in misappropriation and even helped the Inquiry Committee to find out the facts but his supervision was not up to the required standard. His increment be withheld for one year and he should also be transferred from his present assignment."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Inquiry Committee held that the petitioner was not involved in misappropriation or embezzlement, the punishment imposed was unwarranted. We do not agree with the argument because had embezzlement or misappropriation been proved against the petitioner, the punishment might have been dismissal from service keeping in view the loss of heavy amount to the tune of Rs,11, 29,440. He was held guilty of lack of supervision that fell short of the required standard. We do not see any discrepancy between the charge proved and the punishment awarded. Rather, the irregularity stands rectified by the Tribunal.
5. The second argument of the learned counsel was that the Inquiry Committee had recommended the withholding of increment for one year and his transfer from the relevant assignment and that under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the competent Authority had no jurisdiction to disagree with the recommendations of Inquiry Officer.
6. The argument is misconceived at the face of it because section 3 of Ordinance, 2000 in general and 3(i)(e) in particular authorizes the competent Authority to impose any of the punishments given in sub-clause (e) as well as in Government. Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973.
Section 5 read with section 8 authorizes the competent Authority to pass such order on the report and recommendation of the Inquiry Committee or Inquiry Officer, as it may deem proper in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. How such punishments are to be in accord with the provisions of the Ordinance, is fully described in section 3 thereof. It is, therefore, held that the competent Authority it's not bound to follow the report of the Inquiry Officer which in the very term of the section is of recommendatory nature. Recommendations, in view of sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Ordinance, cannot be construed to be binding upon the competent Authority.
7. There being no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.