'ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J. --- Through this petition, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 28-8-2003 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in Appeal No,539(K) of 1997 whereby order of his dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that petitioner was working as Traffic Assistant in Pakistan International Airline Corporation/Respondent No,
1. On 26-9-1990 he was served with a show caused which reads as under:-- "It has been reported to us by a Station Manager, Royal Jordanian Airline, Karachi Airport, that during the process of baggage identification of Royal Jordanian Flight RJ-191/ 22SEP90 one passenger Mr. Riaz Saleh (Jordanian National) contacted him and told him that the passenger had paid US$ 400 being the charge of excess baggage, but the excess baggage ticket No,214-4515- 727-310 was issued for PIO. 6,300 which is equivalent of US$ 300, you were called to face the passenger and you agreed to return US$ 100 and money was paid back instantly in front of many officials of different airport agencies.
' He further stated that you harmed the Airline on following aspects:--
(i) Bad name to the Royal Jordanian Airlines and the staff.
(ii) Loss of revenue to Royal Jordanian Airlines.
(iii) We offer the incident to your good self in order to prevent recurrence of similar incidents in future."
3. Petitioner filed reply to the above said show because wherein he denied the charges.
4. The reply of petitioner was found unsatisfactory, therefore, departmental inquiry was conducted wherein (8) witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was also examined thoroughly by Inquiry Officer. However, he was dismissed from service on 8-8-1993 by the competent authority which order is reproduced as under:-- "With reference to the Show-cause Notice bearing No,STM (T)/D-184/TFC/1416 dated 25-9-1990 issued to you and your explanation in reply thereto, which was considered by the Competent Authority and was not found to be satisfactory.
'Thereafter, an independent enquiry was held against you in whom you participated and were given full defence opportunity. As a result of the enquiry proceedings you have been found guilty of misconduct with which you were charged. In order to provide you another opportunity of defense you were supplied with an enquiry report and thereafter afforded an opportunity of personal hearing with the Competent Authority vide our letter No,AM(AS/P-4934/91, dated 6-10-1991 which you availed but failed to prove your innocence.
' We have carefully gone through the record of the enquiry proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer and concur with his findings that on the basis of evidence recorded during the enquiry proceedings, the charge of misconduct leveled against you has been fully proved.
' The charge proved against you being of a serious nature, the punishment warranted is that of dismissal from service. In the circumstances, it has been decided to dismiss you from the service.
Accordingly, you are hereby dismissed from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect.
' Your dues will be settled by Finance Manager, Airport Services Department as soon as you deposit the following property of PIA and submit a clearance certificate to this effect.
(a) PIA ID Card, (b) PIA Passport, (c) Airport Apron Pass and (d) Any other PIA property.
' This letter is being issued with the approval of Competent Authority.
(Sd.) M. Wasiullah Khan Administrative Manager Airport Service.
5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner served a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance") which was rejected by respondent. Hence, he invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court but his grievance petition was dismissed by learned Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi vide order dated 22-1-1994. Against which he preferred appeal before the learned Sindh Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed on 13- 10-1994. Feeling still dissatisfied petitioner invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh by filing Constitution Petition No,D-20 of 1995 which stood abated in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Hence petitioner filed Appeal No,539(K) of 1997 before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide impugned judgment.
6. We- have heard Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Amir Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
7. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in their true prospective by the learned Tribunal which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. Departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and petitioner was not afforded full opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and leading defense. In fact, it was a case of no evidence as not a single eyewitness of the incident including complainant was examined during the inquiry. He attacked the judgment of learned Tribunal which according to him was not decided on merits but was based on the observations recorded in the judgment of the Sindh Labour Court. Thus, there being no evidence against him, even the punishment of compulsory retirement is not warranted in law.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,1 defended the impugned judgment and contended that all the three forums below have rightly appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Since punishment of dismissal has been converted into compulsory retirement as such petitioner does not deserve any more leniency.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions raised at bar. Show-cause notice was issued on the complaint of Jordanian passenger, namely, Riaz Saleh, who was overcharged by the petitioner and on his complaint excess amount was returned to the passenger in presence of witnesses. It has been brought on record that petitioner was given three warnings on the identical matters earlier to the instant incident and was thus, a habitual offender. In the case in hand, he had shown Rs,6,300 on excess baggage ticket whereas he received US $ 400 from a Riaz Saleh (Jordanian National). Out of which on protest, he returned US $ 100 in presence of eye-witnesses.
R.W. Muhammad Ismail Khan Khattak, in his statement, stated that in case of the foreigners, we accept foreign currency which shows that petitioner has misappropriated US $ 100 and showed Pakistani currency on excess baggage ticket. Complainant in his complaint has also categorically mentioned that he paid US $ 400 to petitioner on excess baggage ticket whereas an amount of Rs,6,300 Pakistani currency was shown which was equivalent to US $ 300 which fact was not denied by petitioner. Mere non-examination of complainant Mr. Riaz Saleh (Jordanian National) and Zahid Diwan, Station Manager, Jordanian Airlines would not absolve him from the liability. Above mentioned witnesses could not be examined as they were foreigners and it was difficult to procure their attendance. Irrespective of the above, P.Ws., namely, Muhammad Saleem Memon, Ahsan, A.
Siddiqui, Ashfaq Haider and G.P. Capt. (Rtd.) Mumtaz Hussain Shah have fully implicated petitioner with the commission of the offence. Evidence of misconduct was thus, rightly established against him. Even then a lenient view has been taken by the learned Tribunal while converting the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.
Resultantly, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.