' HASAN RAZA PASHA, (MEMBER).---This is an appeal against the order dated 3-7-2001 whereby the appellant was awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service on account of inefficiency and misconduct. He submitted a representation on 14-7-2001 which was rejected by the General Manager (Operation), the Appellate Authority on 17-9-2001. Hence this appeal. -
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the service of Pakistan Railways as a Junior Clerk in the Stores Department in 1964. On 23-6-2001 when the show-cause notice was issued to him he was working as Senior Litigation Assistant in BPS-13 at the Railway Headquarter, Lahore. The show-cause notice reads as follows:- `PAKISTAN RAILWAYS ' No. E-122/702. HEADQUARTER OFFICE LAHORE Date: 23-6-2001.
' Mr. Muhammad Idrees Khan, ' Senior Litigation Assistant, ' Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore.
' SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' Whereas you made direct correspondence with Honourable Federal Minister for Communications and Railways and sent him a letter dated 28-3-2001 (copy enclosed).
' And whereas your above said action amounts to conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline and as such falls within the ambit of "misconduct" as defined in Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended by Ordinance No V of 2001).
' And whereas your above said action is violative of rule 18 and 19 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1964 and Government Instructions issued by Establishment Division as 21-6-1997 and circulated by General Manager/Personnel vide his letter No.324-E/O/IV (L) (E.Policy) dated 16- 5-1997 and also violative of General Manager/Personnel letter No.831-E/689-Double Policy dated 4- 12-1999 and as such tantamount to conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline which clearly falls within the definition of misconduct as defined by Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended by Ordinance No. V of 2001).
' And whereas being in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against you there is no need of holding an enquiry.
' Therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause as to why you should not be dismissed from service for being guilty of the above referred misconduct as envisaged under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
' Your reply must reach the undersigned within seven days of the ' receipt of this show-cause notice failing which it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and further action will be taken accordingly.
(Sd)
(Irfan Masood Sheikh) Competent Authority Director Legal Affairs."
' He denied the charges in his written reply to the show-cause notice. He was given personal hearing and his defence having been considered unsatisfactory major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him. Under the orders of General Manager (Personnel) his departmental appeal was rejected and, therefore, he has approached the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in appeal under section 4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The appellant was present in person and argued on his own behalf. He referred to the memorandum of appeal in support of his case and in addition repeatedly argued that the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the written comments submitted by the respondents and added that the appellant was a habitual litigant and was used to scandalizing his senior officers through petitions to the Minister and other authorities within the Railways, that the appellant has admitted the charge in his memorandum of appeal, and that the appellant was given personal hearing by the competent authority. He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal does not have any force and be dismissed.
5. We have careTully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and examined the record of the case.
6. The show-cause notice relates to a letter written by the appellant on 28-3-2001 addressed to the Minister for Railways and Director Vigilance, Pakistan Railways. In this letter the appellant refers to an early letter dated 4-11-2001 which he had addressed to these officers. In this letter the appellant has levelled serious charges of corruption, defalcation of Government funds and embezzlement on Mr. Muhammad Rafique Mian, the former Director Legal Affairs, Mr. Ali Muhammad Chaudhry, Assistant Law Officer, Railways Headquarters, Mr. Manzoor Sheikh, the then Divisional Engineer, Karachi and Mr. Shaukat Samejo, the then Divisional Land Management Officer, Pakistan Railways, Karachi. This letter ends up with a prayer reproduced below:-- "PRAYER ' It is prayed to your honour that appropriate action be taken in finalizing the Hot Burning Litigation issue, related to Project No.7 Gilani Railways Station Karachi and the defaulters.
(1) Mr. Ali Muhammad Chaudhry the then Land Officer (Land Management) P.R.H.Q. Officer Lahore.
(2) Mr. Manzoor Sheikh DEN Karachi.
(3) Mr. Shaukat Ali Samejo, Divisional Land Management Officer Karachi (DLMO) as the D.S./Karachi was the President of the PECHS/Karachi. They misguided the High, ups of Railways and Supefior - Court of Law by concealing the facts of Project No.7 (63.11TAcres illegally caused Litigation/and P.R.
Carrying out for Lost Land.
' Yours obediently.
' (Sd) 28-3-2001 (Muhammad Idris Khan) Senior Litigation Assistant ' P.R./Lahore/at Quetta."
' This letter is accompanied by a list of documents which shows previous letters written by the appellant to Brig. Tariq Mehmood, Director, Vigilance and the Federal Minister for Railways and sundry other documents. The appellant has very candidly owned this letter on the ground that it was his duty as a citizen to do so. We will reproduce the relevant part of para. 3, and full text of para. 4 from the memorandum of appeal:-- "3. ... ... It has been done just in reverse to the normal practice of reward and punishment (P.R.
Gazette No.22 dated. 15-11-1982) as the respondents were themselves liable to disciplinary action and not the appellant, whereas appellant does not involve in any act which could be supposed to be against the Department's interest. This action is based on mala fide and vengeance as that the respondents Nos.3-4 and their other accomplices were/are badly involved in heinous corruption and embezzlement cases and appellant could not close his eyes to leave them plundering the Department and the Nation in different ways and manners and so appellant was duty bound to chase, expose and report the corruption cases of the respondents concerned who for very long period have been plundering the Department by dint of the joint force, pressure and influence. In this connection their illegal acts of loot and misappropriation of Railways' property and funds have become the part of record with the Vigilance Directorate and others.
"4. That to stop and arrest malpractices, funds embezzlements, handling over of costly Railway lands to land mafia it was unavoidable to report the same to Vigilance Cell and others. Appellant having very accurate proofs and solid evidence against respondents No.3, 4 and their chums acts of fraud and scam had to point out."
' (Portion underlined by us for emphasis).
7. The appellant has also attached clippings from different newspapers on the same subject. It has been stated by the respondents in response to para. 3 of memorandum of appeal that the appellant has himself been responsible for causing loss to the Railway Department in Karachi. The relevant part of para. 3 of the written comments is reproduced below:-- "3. ... ... So far as his assertions regarding his crusade against the corrupt element in the department is concerned, it is submitted that being the relevant official at Karachi, he was instrumental in causing loss to the Railway Department and damaging Railway interests in Karachi Railways Land.
Therefore, he was shifted from Karachi to Lahore and upon his failure to mend his ways he was transferred to Quetta. In order to pre-empt any disciplinary action against him and in order to create a protective shield around him, he started filing false, frivolus and malicious complaints against his senior Officers. It may be added here that each and every content of this paragraph is false, incorrect and mala fide and hence is denied."
7. The respondents have also attached a letter from General Manager, Pakistan Railways addressed to the Director, F.I.A., Lahore which shows that even after having been dismissed from service the appellant has been making complaints to different agencies and the Ministries. The aforementioned letter is dated 2-1-2003 and it is in response to Director, F.I.A.'s letter dated 11-11- 2002 which apparently is a complaint by the appellant against Mr. Irfan Masood Shaikh, Director Legal Affairs, the competent authority in this case. Para 2 of this letter is relevant and we reproduce the same below:-- "PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARATERS LAHORE SEAL IQBAL SAMAD KHAN General Manager No. GM. Misc 1/2003.
The Director, Federal Investigation Agency, Lahore Zone, Lahore Subject: COMPLAINT Dated: January 2,2003.
Ref:- Your letter No.DIZ/MISC-L/501/2002/25271.
' The complainant Mr. Muhammad Idrees Khan has a chronic history of indiscipline, insubordination and levelling false allegations against Senior Railway Officers, specially Director Legal Affairs to cover up his inefficiency collusive handling of affairs and lack of interest in official work, Since he had been a Litigation Assistant, he always tried to pre-empt any action against him by his superiors by levelling false allegations and blackmailing them. Many disciplinary inquiries were pending against him in which his role in causing immense loss to the Railway administration was being looked into. In a bid to protect himself Mr. Muhammad Idress Khan made a complaint to Minister for Communications and Railways against former Director Legal and Senior Railway Officers, which was deemed to be 'misconduct' as defined by Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, besides being violative of other rules and service instructions. Hence, he was taken up under aforesaid Ordinance. Mr. Irfan Masood Sheikh, who at the relevant time had recently been appointed as Director Legal Affairs, being the competent authority, was directed to deal with the disciplinary case. In response to the show-cause notice, Mr. Muhammad Idrees Khan not only admitted his act rather further compounded his misconduct by raising further false allegations against almost all the Senior Railway Officers and proof of those allegations, he simply placed various applications moved by him from time to time. Since guilt was admitted and no mitigating factors were pointed out, therefore, he was dismissed from service by Mr. Irfan Masood Sheikh as competent authority and since than he is moving false applications against him to various quarters. Even Ministry of Railways has thoroughly probed into the matter and all the allegations had been found to be false. An office memorandum issued by Ministry of Railways to Law, Justice and Human Rights Division with copy to Auditor General of Pakistan is enclosed."
8. The respondents have also attached a letter dated 14-12-2002 from Mr. Akbar Ali, Deputy Director (Admn. II), Ministry of Railways addressed to Law, Justice and Human Rights Division. This letter also refers to the Law Division's letter dated 15-8-2002 which was written by the appellant after his dismissal from service.
9. The appellant's main argument has been that it was his duty to unveil, chase, expose and report the corrupt practices. This admission on his part is sufficient proof of the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. The effect of such behaviour by the members of the subordinate staff on an organization is self-evident. It poisons the atmosphere and creates disorder in any organization.
Such behaviour constitutes misconduct which in an actionable offence under the Govt. Servants (E&D) Rules as well as the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, Misconduct has been defmed in the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 in section 2(b) as follows:-- "2(b) "misconduct" includes conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman or involvement or participation for gain either directly or indirectly in industry, trade or speculative transactions or abuse or misuse of the official position to gain undue advantage or assumption of financial or other obligations to private institutions or persons such as may cause embarrassment in the performance of official duties or functions."
' The appellant's conduct is patently prejudicial to good order and service discipline and, therefore, the charge of misconduct is proved beyond doubt.
10. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant has pointed out some infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings against him. For instance: (i) regular inquiry has not been conducted, (ii) show-cause notice has been issued by a person who was not competent to do so; and (iii) the appellant was not even given a proper personal hearing.
11. The respondents have maintained and we are in full agreement with them, that the documents which the appellant has owned are sufficient proof of the charge against him. Therefore, no formal inquiry was warranted. The appellant has himself admitted that he was called for personal hearing, that he appeared before the Director, Legal Affairs, and in addition to verbal defence he also submitted some written comments on the day following the personal hearing. In so far as the competence of the Director Legal Affairs is concerned, the appellant has relied on an order of Pakistan Railways which is not relevant to the time when disciplinary action was initiated against him. He has relied on notification dated 26-7-2001 according to which in respect of Railway employees in BPS-11 to 16 the competent authority under Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 is respective General Manager. This notification was issued on 26-7-2001 whereas the disciplinary action against the appellant was initiated on 23-6-2001 with the issue of show- cause notice and completed with the issue of the order of dismissal from service on 3-7-2001. The relevant notification in his case was the one dated 4-6-2001 according to which the competent authority in respect of Railway employees in BPS 13 to 15 are the concerned Head of Office holding BPS-20 post among others General Manager is the appellate authority. This notification is relevant to the present case. The notification dated 4-6-2001 reads as follows:- "For instruction in the Next issue of Gazette of Pakistan Part-I GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND RALLWAYS, RAILWAYS DIVISION Islamabad, dated 4-6-2001.
NOTIFICATION ' No 15(2)/2000 (E1).---In pursuance of Establishment Division Notification No . SRO . 581(1)/2000 dated 21-8-2000, Secretary/Chairman Railways has been pleased to delegate the powers to the following officers as authority to whom representations against orders under section-3 of the "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, as amended by Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2001 No.V of 2001 can be preferred. {{TABLE}} Sr. No. GOVERNMENT/RAIL WAY SERVANT COMPETENT AUTHORITY AUTHORITY TO WHOM REPRESENTATION/ APPEAL LIES 1 2 3 4 Government/Railway Servants holding post in Basic Pay Scale 16 or equivalent. The General Manager/Operation! General Manager/M&S IG/PRP Chairman Government/Railway Servants holding post in Basic Pay Scale 13 to BS-15 or equivalent. Concerned Head of Officer holding (BS-20) post. Divisional Superintendent, Dy CEE/Incharge/PBU Dy CME/W/FBU & DGM for the respective branches General Manager/ Operation General Manger/M&S LG/PRP Government/Railway Servants holding post in BS-11 to BS-12 or equivalent. DS of the Division concerned Deputy Principal Officer holding (BS-19) post. Concerned Head of Department where there is no Dy Principal Officer (BS-19 Officer) Head of the Department General Manager/Operations where D.S. Is punishing authority. Additional General Manager concerned General Manager/ Operations or General Manager/ M&S. Government/Railway Servants holding post in BS-7 to 10 or equivalent. Branch Officer holding the post of BS-18 (to be nominated by Head of Department/Division)
Concerned. Divl.
Officer holding the post of BS-18. Concerned Incharge Officer holding the post of BS-18 or BS-19 if there is no BS-18 Officer. Concerned D.S. Dy.
Principal Officer holding BS-19 Post or BS-20 Officer if there is no BS-19 officer.
Government/Railway Servants holding post in BS-1 to BS-6. Concerned Officer holding the post, of BS- 17 or BS-18 if there is no BS-17 Officer BS- 18 Officer or BS-19 Officer, if there is no BS-18 Officer. {{TABLE}} No.15(12)/2000 (E.1).
Sd)
(MUHAMMAD YAMIN) Assistant Director/Estt-1 Ph.No .9209411 The Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, University Road, Karachi".
12. The relevant parts of the notification dated 26-7-2001 on which the appellant has relied, and which superseded the notification dated 4-6-2001 read as follows:-- "PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE LAHORE No.831-E/689-1/A(APO-IV) Dated 26-7-2001. {{TABLE}} The General Manager/M&S P.R. Islamabad. The Manager, Public Relations, P.R. HQ Office Lahore.
The Director General/Railway Audit, P.R. HQ Office, Lahore. All Officers of "P" Branch, P.R. HQ Office, Lahore.
All Addl: General Manager.
P.R. HQ. Office, Lahore. The F. A. & C. A.
0. P. R. HQ. Office Lahore.
All Divl: Superintendents.
DS/Workshops, Mgpr and Extra Divl. Officer Pakistan Railways. The Director Vigilance, Vigilance Directorate, P. R.
HQ, Office, Lahore.
All Principal Officers, P.R.
HQ Office, Lahore. The Army Monitoring Team, P.R. HQ, Office, Lahore.
The Dy. General Manager, P.R. HQ Office, Lahore. The Director/Legal Affiars, P.R. HQ. Office, Lahore The Director General, P.R.
Academy, Walton, Lahore. C/o Librarian, P.R. HQ.
Office, Lahore. {{TABLE}} Sub: COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND AUTHORITIES TO WHOM REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST ORDERS UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE REMOVAL FROM SERVICE (SPECIAL POWERS) ORDINANCE, 2000 CAN BE PREFERRED.
NOTFICATION ' No. 1/(6)/2000-E-1. In supersession to this Division's Notification No.15(2)/2000-E/1 dated 4-6-2001 the Secretary/Chairman Railway has been pleased to designate the powers to the following officers as "authority" and "appellate authority" to whom representation against the order under section 3 of the "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, as amended by Ordinance No.V of 2001" can be preferred:-- {{TABLE}} S. No. GOVT/RAILWAY SERVANT COMPETENT AUTHORITY AUTHORITY TO WHOM REPRESENTATION/ APPEAL LIES Govt./Railway Servants holding posts in Basic Pay Scales 11 to 16 Respective General Manager Secretary/Chairman Railways Govt./Railway Servants holding posts in Basic Pay Scale 1 to 10 Respective Post/Dss/MDs /Eds (BS-20) Respective General Manager {{TABLE}}
2. The above delegation of powers will be enforced with immediate effect (Sd.)
(MUHAMMAD YAMIN) Assistant Director/E-1 Ph. No. 9209411
13. It is, therefore, established that the show cause notice was issued by the competent authority.
Personal hearing was also given by the same authority. We have been given the office note recorded by the same authority dated 30-6-2001 which shows that the major penalty of dismissal from service was awarded by the Director, Legal Affairs, the competent authority. The order of dismissal also reinforces this position. We, therefore, have no doubt in our mind that action against the appellant was taken by the authority competent to do so. There is no force is the appellant's plea that the Director, Legal Affairs being a contract employee was not competent to act as such.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs..
15. Parties be informed.