' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 9-8-2008 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby appeal filed by petitioner Ghulam Shabbir Sheikh, challenging the o'rder of his compulsorily retirement from service, has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are, that during incumbency as Revenue Officer, Operation Division QESCO Loralai, from 2-6-2001 to 8-11-2001, petitioner was proceeded against for "misconduct" on the allegations of having in collaboration with other officials, by misusing and ignoring the instructions/rules, facilitated the change of tariff from Single Phase Domestic (01) to Agricultural Tariff (52) and extension of load of 538 consumers of Kohlu Sub-Division in computer records without recovery of security deposit amounting to Rs,41,84,000 before feeding the data to computer center. An inquiry committee was constituted to probe into the allegations and in pursuance of recommendations of the committee, petitioner was issued show-cause notice and ultimately he was retired from service. The petitioner, filed departmental appeal which remained unactioned. The petitioner preferred appeal before learned Tribunal, which has been dismissed through the judgment herein, as stated and mentioned above.
3. Mr. Haider Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner, bitterly criticized the impugned judgment and attempted to argue that the allegations levelled against the petitioner imputing acts of corruption necessarily called for a regular inquiry which was dispensed with at the time of issuing of first show-cause notice without recording any reasons and disclosing any justification for adopting a summary procedure; that petitioner was not confronted with the evidence in support of allegations and thus, was not provided proper opportunity to defend his case despite of his repeated requests; that petitioner was not involved in the alleged loss of Rs,4,148 million and even otherwise, the irregularity was curable. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel contended that another employee with the same allegations was imposed a lesser penalty of one step down in timescale for a period of two years without effect which was discriminatory. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Secretary to Government of N.W-.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCM R 413, Abdul Samad and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCM R 71, Engineer Naraindas and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCM R 82, Inspector-General of Police, Police Headquarter Office, Karachi and 2 others v. Shafqat Mehmood 2003 SCM R 207, Syed Yaqoob Shah v. XEN PESCO (WAPDA), Peshawar and another PLD 2002 SC 667, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Noor Jamal, Ex-Executive Engineer 2004 SCM R 294 and Executive Engineer and others v. Zahid Sharif 2005 SCM R 824.
4. No doubt it is true that except in the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, the dispensation of the regular inquiry in a case involving factual controversy would amount to withhold the right of fair opportunity of a person to rebut the charges, but the fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and he was duly informed of the charges levelled against him. A high power committee was constituted to probe into the matter.
The petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of defending his position. He was also granted opportunity of personal hearing before the imposition of penalty, which were considered enough to provide the opportunity of defence. The statement of petitioner that even otherwise the irregularity, if any, is curable because as a usual policy of the Authority, the amount was required to be reedited by the field formations for the recovery through electricity bills or demand notices against the consumers, cannot reduce the gravity of misconduct and causing loss of Rs,4.148 million to the exchequer. It was for the competent authority to decide whether the formal inquiry was required or not in terms of provisions of section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), which reads as under:--- "Power to appoint an Inquiry Officer of Inquiry Committee.---
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) the competent authority shall before passing an order under section 3, appoint an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee to scrutinize the conduct of a person in Government service or a person in corporation service who is alleged to have committed any of the facts or omissions specified in section 3. The Inquiry Officer or as the case may be, the Inquiry Committee shall--
(a) communicate to the accused the charges and statement of allegations specified in the order of inquiry passed by the competent authority,
(b) require the accused within seven days from the day the charge is communicated to him to put in a written defence;
(c) enquiry into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as may be considered necessary and the accused shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness against him; and
(d) hear the case from day to day and no adjournment shall be given except for special reasons to be recorded in writing and intimated to the competent authority.
(2) .............................................
(3) .................................................
(4) The competent authority may dispense with the inquiry under subsection (1) if it is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused, or for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is satisfied that there is no need of holding an inquiry.
(5) .................................................
6. So far as the question of discrimination is concerned, record reveals that one Executive and two Sub-Divisional Officers, found collaborated with the petitioner had also been awarded major penalty of .Compulsorily retirement from service.
7. In the circumstances, we find that learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, assigning sound and cogent reasons, which are not open to legitimate exception. Despite his best efforts, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any misreading or non-reading of material on the file or any infirmity, legal or factual, calling interference by this Court. The case-law cited is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It is of no help to the petitioner. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance could be raised within the meanings of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Resultantly, finding no substance in this petition, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.