' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24-9- 2004 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby Appeal No,798(R)CS of 2002 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that petitioner on 15-8-1988 joined Pakistan Narcotics Control Board (PNCB). On the complaint of the employees of the Anti- Narcotics Force (ANF), Police Station ANF, Gilgit, regarding money lending on interest basis, an inquiry was initiated by two different officers, namely, Mr. Sarzaman Khan, D.S.P. Gilgit and Mr. Raji- urRehmat, Assistant Director ANF, Gilgit against the petitioner. On 26-1-2002 a charge was framed against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 21-2-2002 in which he recommended that one of the major penalties prescribed in the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 for misconduct be imposed on the petitioner. He also recommended disciplinary action against the ANF employees who got the interest earning loan from the petitioner. On 12-6-2002 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner filed departmental appeal. Since, there was no response to the appeal, therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal under section 4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner while holding that the petitioner was involved in the interest bearing lending business among his colleagues which is clearly a violation of Rule 10, Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. We have heard Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Raja Muhammad Irshad, Deputy Attorney-General for the respondents and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case.
4. Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has neither been a loaner nor a loanee but he acted just as a guarantor for loaner. Mst.
Malika Begum as is evident from the agreement deed dated 14-5-1999. He further contended that in fact Mst. Malika Begum had advanced loan to Mahboob, Khush Faraz and Babar officials of ANF on the surety of petitioner. He contended that during the inquiry proceedings, petitioner produced six documents and copy of agreement in his defence but the Inquiry Officer did not consider these documents and also did not discuss or comment upon them in his inquiry report. The transaction of loaning between Mst. Malika Begum and the aforesaid officials of ANF Police Station Gilgit took place during the month of May, 1999 whereas petitioner was transferred to ANF Regional Directorate, Rawalpindi during the month of December, 1999. According to him, the report of Inquiry Officer is completely arbitrary and unjust. He contended that during the inquiry proceedings, four employees of ANF Police Station appeared before the Inquiry Officer in support of the petitioner but the Inquiry Officer did not discuss their evidence in the inquiry report. He further contended that Inquiry Officer had also recommended appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the persons who secured interest based money loan from the petitioner but no action has been taken against them but imposed major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. According to him even on the refusal of the loanees to repay the amount of loan, petitioner approached the Army Monitoring Cell Gilgit on 20-7-2000 and the loanees were summoned by the Army Monitoring Cell and directed them to repay the amount immediately. He further contended that during the month of July, 2000 a vacancy of A.S.-I. Was announced for which the petitioner applied through proper channel and in written test secured the highest marks among the candidates of Northern Areas but one Muhammad Saleem was selected who did not even appear in the interview held in August, 2000 and also obtained lesser marks. The petitioner challenged this illegality before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and for this reason the petitioner was made scapegoat in this case.
5. On the other hand Raja Muhammad Irshad, learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of respondents supported the impugned judgment for the reasons enumerated therein with the submission that it being well in accordance with law hardly warrants any interference. He contended that the Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of five official of ANF Police Station who deposed that the petitioner had developed a tendency of lending money to the employees of ANF as interest based advance for the last 3/4 years which is sufficient to prove that the petitioner was rightly held guilty of the offence. He contended that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and all the codal formalities were observed by the department while imposing penalty upon him.
6. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Malika Begum is the relative of the petitioner and she used to invest her savings on profit. The loan was sought by some official of ANF Police Station from her and the petitioner only stood guarantor because the officials were working in the same office.
7. It is admitted position that during the year 2000 the petitioner applied for the post of A.S.-I. In ANF and qualified the same but he was ignored and one Muhammad Saleem was appointed in his place which compelled him to approach Wafaqi Mohtasib against injustice done to him by the department and learned Wafaqi Mohtasib vide order, dated 29-2-2001 while accepting the grievance petition observed that the grievance of the petitioner/complainant was established to be genuine and he should be given appointment against the next available post of A.S.-I. We see that there is sufficient force in the contention raised at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the department became hostile and biased towards him and consequently out of this malice and the Department succeeded in initiating the departmental proceedings which culminated into his dismissed from service. The proceedings enunciated against him on the charge that he stood surety for the loan taken by the officials of the ANF from a widow Mst. Malika Begum. There was an agreement between Mst. Malika Begum and the employees of the ANF and the matter was ultimately reported to the Army Monitoring Cell for return of the alleged loan and all the three defaulters were called by the Army Monitoring Cell which clearly shows that matter was between Mst. Malika Begum and the officials of the ANF. These all show that the petitioner was not the beneficiary and the Tribunal while recording judgment against him did not consider all these aspects of the matter and merely a person who only stood surety for taking loan by someone does not constitute an offence of misconduct, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in upholding the punishment imposed by the Department.
8. On 11-12-2006 by a short order, we had converted this petition into appeal and accepted. The judgment dated 9-8-2006 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal was set aside. The Director- General, Anti-Narcotics Force was hereby directed to reinstate the appellant, namely Abdul Aziz with effect from 12-6-2002 with all back-benefits.
9. Above are the detailed reasons for the order, dated 11-12-2006.