' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service ,Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 17-9-2001, passed in Appeal No,308(K) of 1998.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner while serving as , Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle-3, Companies-III, Karachi, initially applied through proper channel for grant of house building advance for the purchase of plot at Nawab Shah, vide letter, dated 6-8-1995, His request was acceded to through letter, dated 30-8-1995, whereby an amount of Rs,2,88,468 was sanctioned in his favour. Vide notification dated 9-4-1997, the Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, suspended as many as 14 Officers of Income Tax Administration including the petitioner. This action was followed by issuing of charge-sheet against the petitioner by the Chairman/ Authorized Officer. This charge-sheet was replaced by the same authority by another charge-sheet, dated 19-5-1997, accompanied with the statement of allegations. This charge-sheet and the statement of allegations are available at pages 23-24 of the paper book. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet dated 19-5-1997. Again, before start of inquiry yet the 3rd charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner, which contained two allegations viz, failure to file declaration of assets from the year 1986 to 1992 and 1995, in violation of Rule 12(2) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and the 2nd charge was in A respect of the petitioner to be corrupt or may reasonably be considered as corrupt within the meaning of Rule 3(c) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. This charge-sheet has been accompanied by statement of allegations, which accuses the petitioner of misconduct because of being corrupt and failure to file annual declaration of assets as mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner also sent his reply to the charge-sheet on 25-6-1997. Thus, both. The replies by the petitioner do not contain only the denial of the charges/allegations, but also full description and year-wise details about sending the declaration of assets to the respective authorities. The conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, as a result of the inquiry are as follows:-- "Conclusion
(i) The charges of not having filed/submitted the declaration of assets and the allegations of corruption/having persistent reputation of corruption, and assets of the accused officer being disproportionate to his known means of income remain unsubstantiated and unproved.
(ii) The charge of not having obtained prior permission for purchase of plot of the value of Rs,3,00,000 at Nawabshah is established. Therefore, the accused is found to be guilty of misconduct on this account."
' The inquiry against the petitioner was followed by final show-cause notice, dated 11-10-1997, which was replied by the petitioner through his letter, dated 29-10-1997. However, on the report of the Inquiry Officer, vide Notification dated 29-11-1997 a minor penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of 3 years was imposed upon the petitioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification in the Tribunal, through service appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment, dated 17-9-2001.
Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Naseem, learned Advocate' Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law as well as on facts and is not sustainable; that Rule 11 of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, has been incorrectly applied; that the alleged sale of the plot purchased by the petitioner is hit by the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, because mere agreement does not amount to create sale and misconduct on the part of the petitioner on that account is not spelt out; that the petitioner has very good record and he was awarded cash prizes by the authorities, and keeping in view the facts and record the Tribunal should have modified the minor penalty of withholding of three increments and should have censured the petitioner, but it has created stigma on his service record. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited a plethora of case-laws i,e, Muhammad SaleEm. v.
Superintendent of Police PLD 1992 SC 369; Imtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382; A.U.
Musarrat v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1977 SC 24; M.A. Rahman v. Federation of Pakistan 1988 SCM R 691 and Samiuddin Qureshi v. Collector of Customs PLD 1989 SC 335.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the file. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel at the Bar are not tenable.
Learned counsel, on the specific question by the Court, whether proper sanction for purchase of the plot was obtained by the petitioner from the competent authority, he frankly replied that there was no proper sanction for the purchase of the plot, but house advance loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, therefore, required permission could be presumed in his favour. It would advantageous to reproduced here Rule 11 of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which reads as under:-- "11. Buying and selling of movable and immovable property.--- (1) A Government servant who, intends to transact any purchase sale or disposal by other means, of movable or immovable property exceeding in value Rs,25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand rupees) with any person shall apply for permission to the Head of the Department or the Secretary to the Government, as the case may be. When the Government servant concerned is himself the Head of Department or Secretary to the Government, he shall apply through the Secretary of the Ministry concerned or the Establishment Secretary, as the case may be. Any such application shall state fully the circumstances, the price offered or demanded and, in the case of disposal otherwise than by sale, the method of disposal. TUereafter such Government servant shall act in accordance with such orders as may by passed by the Government."
6. Moreover, this case is barred by 17 days. Vide order, dated 5-7-2002 passed by this Court, the Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal, was directed to submit a comprehensive report supported by the attested photocopies of the relevant documents to the effect as to when certified copy of the judgment was dispatched through Registered A. D. And also confirm the address of the petitioner where it was dispatched. In compliance with the order of this Court, the Registrar of the Tribunal sent report, which shows that the judgment was sent to the petitioner as well as respondent vide covering letter D.No, 9006 to 9010, dated 20-9-200L The order/letter was sent for service on 3-10- 2001, which might have taken 2/3 days in reaching the office of the petitioner, but the same was returned unserved with the following marks:--'
7. {{URDU TEXT} ' The order was announced on 17-9-2001 and the petition was to be filed within 60 days, but it was filed on 7-12-2001. The delay is for 4/5 days. In the application no plausible explanation has been given for condonation of delay.
8. The case-law cited by the petitioner does not support the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In our considered view, the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is based on the law laid down by this Court. Furthermore, the question of general public importance, as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is not involved in this petition.
9. For the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and leave to appeal declined.