' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondents vide notification, dated 11-8-2000 reproduced as under:-- "ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (Registrar's Department)
No, F.
6.60/34. Admn/5319 Dated: August 11, 2000 NOTIFICATION ' Whereas Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer in Biology (BPS 17), Department of Biology, was proceeded against under Federal Government Efficiency and Discipline Rules applicable to Allama Iqbal Open University, on account of approaching higher and external authorities directly; bypassing normal channel of communications i,e,, AIOU authorities, and levelling wild and baseless allegations against various officers/authorities of the University, in violation of rules. And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer, issued show-cause notice to Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer under Rule 5(i)(iii) of the E&D Rules. The ViceChancellor/Authorized Officer called her for Personal Hearing twice, but she did not turn up to defend herself. On the basis of the facts, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer recommended to the Executive Council that Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer, is held guilty of misconduct and, therefore, a major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" be imposed upon her. And whereas, the Executive Council in its 13th Emergency Meeting held on 11-8-2000 considered the recommendations of the Authorized Officer. Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, requested for Personal Hearing by the Council on the morning of 11-8-2000. The Council agreed to call her for personal hearing and provided her an opportunity of defending herself in person before the Council (Authority).
' And whereas, the Executive Council (Authority) after considering the facts of the case, her contentions during the Personal Hearing and the recommendations of the Authorized Officer was convinced that the charges against her stand proved. The Council, therefore, decided to impose upon Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir a major penalty of "dismissal from service" under Rule-4(1)(b)(iv) of E&D Rules with effect from the after noon of 11-8-2000.
' Now, therefore, Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer in Biology (BPS-17) stands dismissed from the service of the AIOU from the afternoon of 11-8-2000.
' The particulars of Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir are as under:-- Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir (w/o Tahir Furqan) D/o Muhammad Idrees.
Resident of House No, 1158, G-9/4, Islamabad.
(Sd.)
(Dr. M. Aslam-Asghar)
Registrar."
' The appellant filed Departmental appeal/review on 6-9-2000, which was not responded to within the statutory period of 90 days, therefore, the appellant preferred appeal before the FST on 3-1- 2001 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973. However, during the pendency of the appeal in the Tribunal, the respondents converted the penalty of dismissal of the appellant from service and imposed upon her the penalty of "Removal from service (termination)" on compassionate grounds vide notification, dated 25-6-2001. Her appeal being No,8(R)CE/2002 (Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir v. Allama Iqbal Open University and others) was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment, dated 23-11-2002, having become infructuous for not amending her appeal after conversion of penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service.
2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her appeal, appellant Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,421 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10-3- 2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal.
Relevant para. 8 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "(8) In view of aforesaid circumstances and reasoning we set aside the impugned order and convert this petition into appeal and allow the same remanding the case to learned Federal Service Tribunal to decide the case afresh on merits dilating upon the pleas raised before it, and to give a definite finding as to whether in the instant case dispensing with of regular enquiry could be judicious application of rule/regulation for the imposition of major penalty and whether the petitioner in the circumstances of case was liable to major penalty of dismissal/removal."
3. Precisely, the facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent-University as Lecturer Botany in May, 1984. She was then by regular appointment made Lecturer Biology in September, 1984. She was subsequently granted Open Merit Commonwealth Scholarship for Ph.D.
She obtained such a decree in the Environmental Studies from Bradford University. In response to an advertisement of the respondent No,1, dated 24-7-1999, she applied along with others for the post of Assistant Professor. The Selection Board of the respondent-University allegedly placed her at No,1 in the merit list, but due to manoeuvring, machination and pressure of the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, Dr. Irfan Khan, who was placed at No,2 in the merit list, was appointed against the advertised post of Assistant Professor, although he did not, allegedly, possess the Doctorate in the relevant field. She was denied the personal hearing sought by her. She made a complaint against the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University to the Federal Education Minister against the injustice done to her, on which a two-member Inquiry Committee comprising Professor Dr. S., Altaf Hussain, whole Time member, UGC and Muhammad Yaqoob, DG (Finance), UGC was constituted to examine her grievance. The Committee recommended that Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir be appointed as Assistant Professor (B-18) in the newly established Department of Environmental Sciences against the vacant post of BPS-18 shown in the current budget (1999- 2000) of the AIOU forwarded to the Finance Department through University Grants Commission.
The Minister for Education/Pro-Chancellor, AIOU, approved the above recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. As against the selection and appointment of Dr. Ifran Khan and having not been appointed as per recommendation of the Executive Council, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and the Wafaqi Mohtasib, but she did not succeed.
Thereafter, she started sending applications to the higher authorities, Welfare Associations of the University and the national personal levelling serious allegations against the University administration of corruption, maladministration, financial corruption, racism, discrimination, favourites, wilfully misguiding the members of Executive Council, promoting demerit in AIOU, using members of the Executive Council as Rubber Stamps and forgery. She also dubbed the University administration as culprits and asked for the removal of the University authorities. Some of the allegations, levelled by the appellant in her applications, addressed/endorsed to the Chief Executive of Pakistan, are as under:-- "I expect from the higher authorities to have a stern action against Dr. Anwar's racisim, injustice, stubbornness, discrimination and being promoter of demerit in AIOU. He must be removed from the Vice-Chancellorship to save the University from corruption and maladministration with a higher level investigation inquiry with regard to merit selection and financial corruption."
"I am facing serious mental tensions and agony due to this forgery coupled with discrimination and racism committed by Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui and his maladministration. For these frauds, forgeries, blatant lies etc., I have no choice but to sue the culprits for which I have already consulted with my legal advisor. Very soon my legal adviser will issue the legal notices to the culprits for compensation of damages."
"AIOU Administration's statement about disposal of my appeals by the LHC and the Wafaqi Mohtasib are absolutely incorrect and misleading and proving further evidence of racism, injustice, fraud, forgery, misdeeds etc. To the higher authorities, will do this again and again until AIOU is free from injustice, racism and discrimination."
' Her undesirable activities went a step forward by addressing an application to the DG, FIA Islamabad. The Registrar of the respondent University then addressed to the appellant following Respondent University then addressed to the appellant following warning vide letter 27-1-2000, which reads as under:-- " You have been incessantly and consistently submitting appeals/letters etc., to the Higher Authorities maligning the Vice-Chancellor in person and AIOU administration as well, despite the fact that your case was considered by the appropriate (sic) for a (sic) but was rejected.
' The correct procedure for submission of appeal is provided in the Civil Servants Act of 1973 which envisages submission of all such requests through proper channel. Non-adherence to this procedure, tantamounts to misconduct.
' Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act bars representations/appeals etc., for promotions/selection or holding a particular post, therefore, your claim that you are fit to be the Asstt. Professor is judgment of your own about yourself. You are finally warned to desist from submitting such representations/letters etc. To higher authorities by any means in future otherwise severe disciplinary action will be taken against you under E & D Rules."
' Inspite of the above-mentioned warning, the appellant did not desist from making any further petition of the kind mentioned above, with the result that the Vice-Chancellor as authorized officer of the respondent-University issued 'the following show-cause notice, dated 1-3-2000:-- "Subject:---Show Cause Notice.
' In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (iii) of Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui. Vice-Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), as Authorised Officer in respect of Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (Biology)
Faculty of Sciences, AIOU:--
(a) am of the opinion that in view of the allegations listed in paragraph 4 below, that Dr. (Mrs.)
Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (Biology), Faculty of Sciences, AIOU, appears to be prima facie guilty of misconduct, and that there are sufficient grounds that disciplinary action be initiated against her under the said Rules; and
(b) have decided that it is not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee.
(2) I, therefore, by this Notice inform the said Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, that on the grounds listed in paragraph 4 below, it is proposed to impose on her the major penalty of dismissal from service, described in Rule 4 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. She is accordingly called upon to show-cause why the proposed action should not be taken against her.
(3) The explanation (in duplicate) should reach the undersigned within 14 (fourteen) days of the receipt of this Notice, failing which it shall be presumed that she has no defence to offer and that she accepts the charges. She may also state in writing if she desires to be heard in person.
(4) The details of her acts of omission and commission constituting misconduct are as under:--
(i) that she has been submitting petitions/applications to higher authorities on matters relating to her appointment to a particular post, which is barred by proviso to section 22 of the Civil Servants Act;
(ii) that all her petitions contained wild allegations against superior officers, and were in violation of the prescribed procedure laid down in Establishment Secretary's D.O. Letter, No,8/13/71-F. 1 dated 28-5-1974 (Serial No,13, pages 9788-979 ESTA CODE, 1989 Edition);
(iii) that despite the fact that her appeals before the Lahore High Court, the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the Executive Council of the AIOU, having failed, she did not desist from making any further such appeals to higher authorities containing wild allegations against senior officers;
(iv) that she has been endorsing copies of the above said petitions to the press, without permission of the competent authority, bringing in disrepute to the University and the senior officers of the AIOU;
(v) that she was warned to be careful and to desist from her such nefarious activities vide AIOU's letter No, F. 6-60/84- Admn/475, dated 27th January, 2000, otherwise severe disciplinary action would be taken against her under the E&D Rules; and
(vi) that she instead of desisting from making any further petitions, she by her application, dated 24th February, 2000, addressed to the Registrar, AIOU, not only levelled the same old wild and baseless allegations against the senior officers of the University she went a step further by enclosing an application addressed to the Director General, FIA, levelling false, baseless and wild allegations against senior officers of the University for registration of criminal case, the requested,
(sic) for its transmission through proper channel.
(Sd.)
(Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui)
' VICE-CHANCELLOR, AIOU AND AUTHORISED OFFICER"
' The appellant replied the show - cause notice vide her reply, dated 21-6-2000 wherein repeating her allegations against the Vice-Chancellor, expressed no confidence in him and demanded a full- fledged inquiry after changing the Vice Chancellor as Authorized officer. The appellant then submitted an application to the Chairman, Executive Council, AIOU, through the Vice-Chancellor, for withdrawal of the show-cause notice, dated 1-3-2000, the appeal was, however, withheld by following letter, dated 2-8-2000:-- "Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' Please refer to your Appeal, dated 10th july, 2000 on the subject noted above.
(2) I am directed to state that your Appeal under reference does not contain a reference to the final order appealed against and therefore, the same has been withheld by the authority in accordance with rule 7(1)(a) of the Civil Servant (Appeal) Rules, 1977 applicable to the employees of Allama Iqbal Open University.
(Sd.)
(Dr. M. Aslam Asghar) Registrar."
' The appellant was twice called by the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized Officer for personal hearing, but through her letter, dated 3-1-2001 she declined to appear before him again levelling allegations against him. On 2-8-2000, the Vice-Chancellor/Authorized officer submitted to the Executive Council a detailed report with the following recommendations:-- "(4) Recommendations:--
(1) In the light of preceding paragraphs, Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, Lecturer (accused), Faculty of Sciences, AIOU is held guilty of "Misconduct." It is recommended that major penalty of "dismissal from service" as provided under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the E&D Rules be imposed upon the said Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir, (accused) with immediate effect."
The appellant was then called in the 13th Emergency Meeting of the AIOU Executive Council held on 11-8-2000 and she was heard in detail by following 9 members of the Executive Council (out of total number of 15) present in the meeting:-- {{TABLE}} "(1) Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui Vice- Chancellor Chairman Dr. Justice Fida Muhammad Khan Judge, Federal Shairat Court Member Mr. Iftikhar Arif Chairman, Academy of Letters Member Dr. A.W. Baloch Director General (Admn), UGC Nominee of the Chairman UGC Dr. M. Tufail Hashmi, Dean, Faculty of AIS. Member Dr. Parveen Liaqat, Dean, Faculty of Sciences Member Dr., Qudsia Riffat Associate Professor Member Mr. Iqbal Shah Assistant Professor Member Syeda Mohsina Munawar Lecturer" Member {{TABLE}
4. The appellant Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir was examined by the Executive Council. The questions put to her by the Members of the Executive Council and her replies are relevant for understanding the whole case of the appellant and for just decision of this appeal. These are reproduced as under (Minutes of the 13th Emergency Meeting of the AIOU Executive Council held on 11-8-2000):-- "During the personal hearing, the questions asked and her responses to the questions are given below:--
(i) Why has she taken the position that she could not accept the Vice-Chancellor as the Authorized Officer as per the Rules? Can she cite any instance of personal bias or discrimination against her by the Vice-Chancellor who has been appointted as Authorized Officer by the Executive council in its 57th meeting held on 7-2-1998?
She could not cite any example of personal bias against her by the Vice-Chancellor.
(ii) She was asked whether all the letters/petitions and news item mentioned in the documents placed before the Council, were written by' her or not? She was specifically confronted in with the following news item published in the daily Nawa-e-Waqe, Rawalpindi/Islamabad of 9-11-1999. {{URDU TEXT}} ' She affirmed that all the petitions/letters were written by her and endorsed by her. She, however, claimed that the news item was not directly sent by her. It was either sent by her husband or copied by the newspaper from her petitions.
(iii) She was asked whether she continued to write similar petitions directly to the Minister/Pro- Chancellor, Member of the Executive Council and others after the issuance of written warning to her by the Registrar on 27-1-2000.
She maintained that she did not write any petition directly after the issuance of the written warning and that she rather submitted such petitions through the University. She categorically denied to have written any application or letter to anyone, after the issuance of warning to her on 27-1-2000.
However, perusal of the record reveals that on 4-4-2000, she wrote an application duly signed by her and tick marked to G-1, Corp 10, Rawalpindi, dated 24-2-2000, and another letter addressed to the Director-General, F.I.A., Islamabad, dated 24-2-2000 (after the written warning), making serious allegations against various officers and authorities demanding that an F.I.R. Should be registered against the following, stating as under:-- "Hence, Dr. Anwar .And his administration purposely committed fraud, forgery, racism etc. Against me. Firstly, deliberately changed the merit against the recommendations of the Selection Board of the AIOU for the post of Assistant Professor (Environmental Science) and secondly wilfully provided wrong interpretation/misguided to the higher authorities about my Ph.D degree only to defend their injustice, fraud, forgery, racism, etc., against me. I request you Sir, to kindly register a case against the following culprits as per P.P.C. Under intimations to me and to start ltgal proceedings for the above mentioned fraud/forgery:--
(1) Dr. Anwar Hussain Siddiqui, Vice-Chancellor, AIOU.
(2) Ch. Saeed Ahmed, Ex-Registrar, AIOU.
(3) Dr. M. Aslam Asghar, Registrar, AIOU.
(4) Mr. Ilyas Ahmed, Additional Registrar.
(5) Mr. Iftikhar Arif, 4011C, Part Towers, F 8/3, Islamabad. (External Member, Executive Council).
(6) Dr. A.H. Dani, H. No,17, St. 10, F-8/3, Islamabad. (External Member. Executive Council).
(7) Prof. Dr. Altaf Ali G. Shaikh, 347, St. 29, 1-8/1, Islamabad. (Chairman, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad)."
' She was shown these letters but she could not give any satisfactorily reply and could not explain the contradiction pointed out to her. She accepted that the signatures on the petitions are her's, but probably her husband got her signatures on the petition and sent it to these people.
(iv) She was asked whether she was advised and counselled by the Dean, Faculty of Sciences.
Dean, Faculty of Arabic and Islamic Studies and many other Faculty colleagues, to desist from violating the University conduct Rules.
She did not deny that such counselling was offered to her. The Dean, Faculty of Sciences, Dean, Faculty of AIS, who were present in the meeting, reminded her of all the advice and counselling offered to her by them repeatedly to desist from violating the University conduct rules. She did not deny these facts.
(v) She was asked by Mr. Iftikhar Arif, Member, AIOU, Executive Council that how she can prove that the call threatening her and her family was made by the Vice-Chancellor.
' She agreed that, during the last there and a half years, the Vice-Chancellor had never talked to her on telephone. She indicated that the call might have been made by somebody else.
' Mr. Iftikhar, Arif, further asked her as to why she did not verify it from the Vice-Chancellor, whether he had made the call, when she was not sure, and took the precipitate action of complaining to all and sundry, of the Vice-Chancellor's threats.
' She could not give any plausible explanation and admitted that someone might have faked the call.
(vi) Finally, she was asked by Dr. Justice Fida Muhammad Khan, Member, AIOU Executive Council, whether she feels any repentance/remorse on her behaviour.
' She refused to show any repentance/remorse, and added that whatever she has done was correct.
' All through the Hearing and discussion of her case, all the attending members remained present.
' After the conclusion of the hearing, the Council unanimously observed that it has been proved beyond doubt that:--
(i) She has owned all the petitions written by her against the University.
(ii) She could not cite any instance or example of any personal bias by the Vice-Chancellor against her.
(iii) She had been counselled all along by all concerned including the Dean, Faculty of Sciences, to desist from violating the conduct rules.
(iv) She continued to write petitions directly to outside authorities and others including the Members of the AIOU Executive Council, inspite of a written warning by the Registrar.
(v) She has refused to show any repentance or remorse about her behaviour and actions, even at this stage."
' The Executive Council, AIOU unanimously accepted the recommendation of the authorized 'officer to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service on appellant Dr. (Mrs.) Farrukh Tahir. She was accordingly dismissed from service vide notification, dated 11-8-2000 (subsequently her dismissal from service was changed to the penalty of removal from service).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the written comments filed on behalf of the respondents as also the authorities cited at the bar.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the show-cause notice, dated 30-6-2000 issued to the Appellant the Authorized officer (Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui) had dispensed with the regular inquiry on the ground that in the light of the facts of the case and documentary evidence duly supported therewith. He had not given any reasons for it; that the appellant had raised objection against the authorized officer as he was hostile to her and under the law he, being a complainant against the appellant, could not be Judge of his own cause as Chairman of the Executive Council; that inspite of numerous and serious allegations levelled by the appellant against the said authorized officer/ViceChancellor and the Members of the Executive Council and others and regular formal inquiry, in view of the several authorities of the apex Court, was absolutely necessary in this case, but that was not done and the appellant was punished illegally by adopting summary procedure; that a very harsh penalty of dismissal, subsequently, converted into removal from service, was imposed upon the appellant without taking into consideration all the pleas raised by her and the attending circumstances leading to the controversy about the illegal selection of Dr. Irfan Khan against the advertised post of Assistant professor vis-a-vis the appellant who was placed at No,1 in the merit list by the Selection Board; that the very harsh penalty of removal from service for a petty misconduct, if any, was not at all justified and was against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel urged that in view of the serious irregularities committed by the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant the impugned notification of punishment be set-aside and she be reinstated in service with all consequential and back benefits.
In support of his arguments on the point of dispensing with the inquiry, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on 2003 PLC (CS) 353, 2004 SCMR 294, 2003 SCMR 681, 2003 PLC (CS) 358, 2002 SCMR 57 and 2001 SCMR 1566.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the authorized officer had rightly dispensed with the regular inquiry in the show-cause notice on the ground of documentary evidence available on record; that the Vice-Chancellor, being the only officer of BPS-22 was appointed by the Executive Council to be authorized officer in cause of employees of BPS-17 and above, therefore, he had to act as authorized Officer and Chairman of the Executive Council. He pointed out that identical objection about the authorized officer was .Repelled by the Lahore High Court, that the penalty of dismissal/removal from service was imposed on the appellant by the Executive Council after personally hearing her at length; hence, no prejudice was caused to the appellant.
About regular formal inquiry, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the misconduct of the appellant was apparent from the (sic) hence reading of the letters/communications she had addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, higher authorities, Director General, FIA with copies endorsed to the President of Pakistan downward to all other important officers and washing the dirty linen even before the press. The learned counsel argued that the replies of the appellant in personal hearing before the Executive Council are admission of using harsh/bad words and sending letters to the higher authorities bypassing the normal channel as evident in her review/departmental appeal and memorandum of appeal, as also repeated apologies to the Vice-Chancellor Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui and to others proved her misconduct and needed not further regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against the appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that the controversy about the selection of Dr. Ifran Khan as against the appellant was set at rest vide a Full Bench judgment, dated 26-7-2000 of this Tribunal, passed in Appeal No,1460(R)/1999 (Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir v. Vice-Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad and others). The learned counsel stated that in the said appeal the appellant Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir had raised the question of illegal appointment of Dr. Irfan Khan as Assistant Professor ignoring her merit. The learned counsel for the respondents further pointed out that in the lengthy admission order, dated 10-2-2001 of the present appeal of the appellant, a Full Bench of this Tribunal headed by the Chairman, considering the statement of regret and apology of the appellant in review appeal, held that the appellant had been dealt with in accordance with rules and punished accordingly that the said Bench further observed that the appellant was a lady with higher qualification, the Bench would examine only the quantum of punishment in term of major penalties provided under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. In view of his above submissions the learned Counsel for the respondents passionately urged that the appeal of the appellant was devoid of any merit, therefore, it be dismissed with costs.
8. We have carefully considered the above arguments of both sides. At the very outset, we have to say that in view of the numerous authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against an accused employee has to be held specially where there is factual controversy between the parties and imposition of major penalty is envisaged/proposed by the employer. In the instant case, the appellant had already raised serious factual controversy alleging mala C fide, hostility and vendetta against the Vice-Chancellor and others in connection with selection of Dr. Irfan Khan ignoring her merit. This alone was sufficient to necessitate a regular inquiry in the matter. Instead of issuing the show-cause notice the respondents should have issued a proper charge-sheet to the appellant (in reply whereof, if necessary) ordering inquiry into the allegations and providing full chance of defence to her including the personal hearing. Though, full chance of personal hearing was given to the appellant, but no regular inquiry was ordered or held in the matter. That was a patent illegality, lacking judicious application of law, which led to the imposition of major penalty upon the appellant however, we cannot overlook the collateral and subsequent development in the case of the appellant.
9. The appellant had all along raised, with all ferocity, hue and cry about alleged injustice meted out to her by appointing Dr. Irfan Khan ignoring her first position in the merit list. In this connection, firstly, we have to observe that, no question of her first position was raised by the appellant during the personal hearing. Secondly she does not appear to have, at any stage, called upon the respondents to file or produce the original selection list. Thirdly, the Full Bench judgment, dated 26- 7-2000 of this Tribunal in Appeal No, 1460(R)/1999, referred to above, shows that she had herself demolished the grievance of her non-selection by the respondents on merit. The relevant, portion of the said judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:-- "(3) During the course of arguments in this appeal it was mutually agreed by both the parties that if it is proved that Dr. Muhammad Irfan is a Ph.D. In Environment Science from Imperial College of Science then learned counsel for the appellant and husband of the appellant stated at the bar that they would withdraw the appeal. The respondent University's representative produced a Photostat copy of the certificate issued by the University of London wherein it was stated that Mr. Muhammad Irfan Khan has passed degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Environmental Science from Imperial College of Science, London. On the basis of this certificate and the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellant and the husband of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with no other as to costs."
' In the review/departmental appeal in para. 3 the appellant stated as under:-- "I open heartedly regret and apologize for the hard and inappropriate words used in my appeals, which merely showed my frustration faced by me at that time. Those words, were never intended to hurt anyone at all. Even then I guarantee you Sir, that I will never use those words in future and will, Insha Allah, abide rules for sending of application(s) to higher authorities."
' On the last page of this review appeal, quoting the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW): Do respect to elders and be patient and kind to the younger, she stated as under:-- "In the light of the above sayings although I tried all my best to respect elders but due to some misunderstanding if I hurt anyone I apologize for that. During the last controversy I tried my best to operate within the limit of rules, regulations and ethics but I feel that due to such inappropriate words in my appeal (which are only due to frustration) may hurt Dr. Anwar H. Siddiqui Shaib, to whom I respect as I respect my father, I humbly apologize from him and do hope that he will forgive me. Insha Allah, I will never give any chance of controversy in further."
' In ground No,2 of her said appeal, the appellant stated as under:-- "(2) As far as the appellant remembered and the record available with her, she had not sent any application/appeal directly nor endorsed any copy to the higher or external authorities after the receipt of warning Letter No,F 6-60/84-Admn/475, dated 27-1-2000 . "
' The above excerpt of her appeal clearly amounts to her admission for sending and endorsing applications directly before issuing of the letter of warning and impliedly indirectly after issuing the letter of warning. She has also not disowned or denied the contents of such letters and her signatures on such letters. This also gets support from her replies in the personal hearing, reproduced above. A perusal of the letters, replies, communications of the appellant on record clearly proved her misconduct. We may observe here that instead of calling names and levelling wild allegations against the Vice-Chancellor, Members of Executive Council and others, enjoying highly respectable passions in the Society, the gentlemen way for the appellant was to have agitated her grievance before the legal fora having jurisdiction. She did file appeal No,1460(R)/1999 (Dr. Mrs. Farrukh Tahir v. Vice Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad and others), referred to above on 31-7-1999, but withdrew it on 26-7-2000. Having lost her cause before the Tribunal (against which we do not know, if any appeal was filed before the apex Court), her claim or about the alleged injustice, done to her by the respondents by selecting Dr. Irfan Khan ignoring her merit and alleged No,1 position awarded to her by the Selection Board, was meaningless. And lastly her apologies appellant on what controversial facts and grounds he demanded the regular inquiry and whether he would like the matter to be remanded for regular inquiry. He frankly stated that he would not press the appeal on merit and would rather prefer conversion of the major penalty of the appellant into some minor penalty.
11. We have considered all aspects of his case. Our conclusion is that dispending with regular inquiry by the respondents was not judicious application of rule/regulations for imposition of major penalty and in the circumstances mentioned above the appellant was not liable to major penalty of dismissal/removal. This brings us to question of the quantum of the penalty imposed on the appellant.
12. The appellant is a highly qualified lady, who had been in pursuit of better prospects and unwittingly and ill advisedly, lost her job. She does not appear to have behaved like a normal educated woman that may be due to her pregnancy/maternity in the days, before and after the issuance of show - cause notice to her. The plight in which she was lodged in is pitiable. It needed to be considered sympathetically.
13. In this country, where under the Islamic Law even a murderer is forgiven on tendering apology to the heirs/family of the deceased, the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor (whom the appellant had considered like her father) and the highly educated respectable members of the Executive Council should have been gracious enough, on tendering apology by the appellant, to have excused her or to have imposed a minor penalty on her instead of totally ruining her brilliant career by shutting out the doors of the University and may be of other educational institutions and allow her talent and higher education to rust by unused.
14. We, therefore, on compassionate grounds, modify her punishment of removal from service by converting it into the penalty of withholding of her two increments for two years. She shall be reinstated in service accordingly from the date of her removal from service. The intervening period since the date of her removal till reinstatement shall be treated as leave of any kind that may be due. The modified penalty of the appellant would meet the ends of justice. No order as to costs.
15. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters under Rule 21 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.