1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--- This petition has been filed against the order of removal, dated 30-10- 2006, passed under section 3(2) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, ("Ordinance, 2000").
2. ' The petitioner has challenged that order, on the grounds, inter alia that he has been removed from the service without providing him proper opportunity of hearing against the charge levelled against him and that no proper inquiry was conducted, as no evidence was recorded nor even definite evidence was taken into consideration and that even the charge levelled against him vide show-cause notice does not fall within the meaning of section 2-B of the Ordinance, 2000 and that action against the petitioner was not authorized by law as the signatory to removal order or show- cause notice was not authorized to initiate action under Ordinance, 2000.
3. ' The gist of the contention is that the petitioner was proceeded against on the ground that he was caught red handed on 7-5-2006 while stealing some items from the Duty Free Shop Dubai International. Airport and his explanation was not accepted.
4. ' Charge-sheet, dated 21st June, 2006 was served upon the petitioner, followed by. Inquiry, then a show-cause notice, dated 15-8-7006 was issued intimating thereby that the charge has been proved against the petitioner and he should show cause as to why penalty should not he imposed.
5. The petitioner submitted his reply, which was not considered proper hence, he was removed from the service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman PIA but same was also dismissed.
6. ' The version of the respondent is that respondent has taken action in accordance with law, which does not suffer from legal infirmity and that the petitioner has grievance against the factual position recorded in the inquiry then that cannot be sorted out in the writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner can come for damages only and cannot claim reinstatement under writ jurisdiction. It has further been pointed out that respondent PIA has no statutory rules, therefore, law of Master and Servants will apply hence the prayer in the petition is misconceived. To rebut the factual position in respect to the charge levelled against the petitioner, details of theft committed by the petitioner as well as his apprehension by the official of Dubai Duty Free Shop has been given in detail. It has also been pointed out through Annexure along with reply that the petitioner has admitted stealing of items from Dubai Duty Free Shop. It has further been stated that proper inquiry was conducted and questions and answers were recorded while evidence of the witness was also recorded, thereafter, removal was ordered.
7. ' Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the documents filed with .The reply by respondent but has explained that the reply of the petitioner be read, keeping in view the circumstances and that the petitioner gave confessional statement before the Duty Free Shop's officials only to save the flight from being late, as he was crew on that flight. He further submitted that inquiry in the form of questions and answers is not a proper inquiry and that the charge, even if proved, does not call for severe punishment like removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1997 SCMR 1073 on the point that in the absence of confronted inquiry, the dismissal is to be set aside. On the point of proportionate punishment, keeping in view the charge levelled, the learned counsel has cited 2007 PLC (C.S.) 81 and 2002 SCMR 692. On the point that statement in the shape of questions and answers is not substitute of inquiry, learned counsel has placed reliance on 1993 SCMR 1440 and on the point of natural justice 2001 SCMR 934 has been cited which for not providing personal hearing reliance has been placed on 2003 PLC (C.S.)
7. Learned counsel has further argued that the order passed on the appeal is contrary to section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, as reasons have not been incorporated and that the petitioner was not confronted with the alleged stolen properties/amount, therefore, his reinstatement may be ordered in terms of 2002 TD 331. Learned counsel went on arguing that Removing Officer was DMD and was not competent to remove and that there was no misconduct in respect of the PIA hence action cannot be taken on the report of third person and under Ordinance, 2000, authority was Chief Executive of Pakistan, therefore, action by PIA official for removal was not legal.
8. ' Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that first of all, it is to be seen that vide a Notification, dated 27-5-2000, the Chief Executive of Pakistan has conferred his powers upon the head of several authorities and since the petitioner was in lower grade, therefore, Corporation's Officer like DMD was authorized to take action. He has submitted copy of Notification during arguments. He has argued that petitioner participated in the inquiry and he was fully let known the nature of allegation, documents against him and the witnesses to be produced and that his statement was recorded exactly in reply to the question and that the statement in the form of questions and answers when it provides an opportunity to the incumbent to submit, his case is proper statement and can be relied upon and that in presence of admission by the petitioner before Duty Free Shop's officials, no inquiry was needed but to complete the procedural requirements, inquiry was conducted. Learned counsel has submitted that personal hearing is not requirement of law and he has relied upon PLD 1981 SC 225 and PLD 1996 SC 787. He has argued that the allegation on the part of the petitioner is of theft which not only gives bad name to the Corporation but even to the country and very well falls within the meaning of misconduct under Ordinance, 2000. He submitted that punishment was proportionate to the allegation as even on the ground of theft of cigarette, the employ was dismissed, he has referred 1975 SCMR 46 and another authority in respect of the Bank Employee, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1247. He has further argued that even improper act on the part of employee is misconduct within the meaning of Ordinance, 2000 and has relied upon 2007 SCMR 198=2007 PLC 55 in this respect.
9. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record as well as authorities cited, we have noted that as far as allegation of theft is concerned, it is based on third party report, which cannot be termed as partial and that the petitioner has admitted that theft by endorsing in his own handwriting with signature on "Apprehended Shop Lifter Report". The petitioner even in his statement recorded on 7-5-2006 has not denied taking of certain items from Dubai Duty Free Shop but has stated that he intended to purchase but watching that his colleagues were going towards wrong direction, therefore, he walked towards them and then he was called from the back by the Security Agency Officials who questioned about the payment and thereafter he was taken to high- ups of Dubai Duty Free Shop. This factual position need no further explanation as a common person can realize that leaving the shop with certain items shows the intention of a person to pay or not to pay. Moreover, admission on the part of the petitioner given in "Apprehended Shop Lifter Report", that he has stolen some pieces of cosmetic items, involves him in the shop lifting which from all corners falls within the meaning of misconduct as defined in the Ordinance, 2000, therefore, the employer/PIA was very much entitled to take action and that removal in that respect can be termed as proportionate punishment as it is a serious kind of misconduct and also falls within the meaning of crime punishable even under the penal laws. The authorities quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant, keeping in view the above factual position. The petitioner has participated in the inquiry with full knowledge of nature of allegations and has submitted his replies. His statement is in two forms, one is a plain statement, dated 7-5-2006 and another in form of questions and answers, which gives complete picture of allegations and defence taken, therefore, it can be relied upon. According to record, the petitioner was provided proper opportunity to defend his case and inquiry report is lucid which was followed by show- cause notice and punishment while order on appeal is also proper order, as according to that, it was considered but was regretted.
10. ' It has further been observed that personal hearing is not legal requirement and depends upon the option of the employer. It can be termed as supplementary and can be ordered if there remained some deficiency in the enquiry or any explanation is further needed from the person acted against.
11. The quantum of amount or the gravity of act is not very much material for the action to be taken and it is to be seen that as to whether in given circumstances an alleged act amounts to misconduct and should be proceeded against or not. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent i,e, 1975 SCMR 46 and 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1247 can be used as a reference.
12. In such a situation and keeping in view the above factual position, we were not inclined to accede to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and dismissed the petition, with listed application by a short order, dated 4-12-2007 and above are the reasons for the same.