Javed Iqbal, J.--Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect "that the appellant was working as Line Superintendent-II when he was suspended from service vide Office Order dated July 2000. Later a letter of explanation under rule 5(4) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978 was issued on 12.09.2000 which contained the allegation that the appellant installed a 25 KVA Transformer without the approval of the competent authority and received Rs,60,000/- as illegal gratification from the said consumer. The appellant submitted his reply, to the said show cause notice on 29.09.2000 wherein the allegation regarding the alleged unauthorized installation of the Transformer was explained. The allegation of receiving illegal gratification was totally denied. Without holding any regular inquiry into the said allegations a show cause notice dated 03.10.2000 was issued to the appellant wherein it was provisionally suggested to impose the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments falling due on 01.12.2000 and 01.12.2001. Vide Order dated 07.10.2000 the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments was accordingly imposed. On 31.10.2000 another show cause notice was issued to the appellant whereby the competent authority proposed to convert the earlier penalty into the major penalty of dismissal from service. The appellant replied to this show cause notice on 13.11.2000 and reiterated his defence which he had earlier submitted. Vide Office , Order dated 20.11.2000 the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the appellant. The appellant filed a departmental appeal against the said major penalty on 26.12.2000. In pursuance of this appeal an Office Order dated 28.05.2001 was passed whereby the major penalty of dismissal from service was withdrawn and the appellant stood reinstated in service from the date of the dismissal order. The matter did not end there. Another show cause notice dated 31.07.2001 was issued to the appellant wherein it was once again proposed that the case of the appellant needed review and once again it was suggested to impose a minor/major penalty on account of same allegations. The appellant once again submitted a detailed reply on 31.08.2001. While the above proceedings were still pending, the appellant was promoted as LS-I vide Office Order dated 06.06.2002. Despite the above, the appellant was issued a letter of personal hearing on 18.11.2003 and lastly vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2004, the appellant awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from service", which was assailed before the learned Federal Service Tribunal by way of appeal and acceptance thereof has been challenged by filing this petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. Heard Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti on behalf of petitioner, who mainly argued that legal and factual aspects of controversy has not been dilated upon and decided in accordance with the law which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is argued that learned Federal Service. Tribunal was not justified to entertain and decide the time barred appeal I without condonation of delay and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is next argued that after the creation of QESCO, which is a private limited company, its employees cannot invoke the jurisdiction of learned Federal Service Tribunal and accordingly the judgment delivered is ab initio, void and illegal. It is conceded that the question of jurisdiction was never raised before the Service Tribunal but it should have been decided by the Tribunal itself as it is for the forum concerned to decide the question of jurisdiction prior to initiation of any proceedings, which could not be done by the learned Federal Service Tribunal for the reasons best known to it. It is also pointed out that major penalty of compulsory retirement was in accordance with the relevant rules and justified, hence the question of its reversal without any lawful justification does not arise as a very serious charge of corruption was levelled against the respondent who had obtained an amount of Rs, 60,000/- as illegal gratification for the installation of 25 (twenty five) KVA Transformer. It is argued that if full-fledged inquiry was not conducted the matter could have been remanded to the Department for doing the needful and the respondent should not have been exonerated from all the allegations, which were serious in nature.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the . judgment impugned. We have not been persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned ASC on behalf of petitioner that learned Federal Service Tribunal was not justified to entertain and decide the time barred appeal for the simple reason that question qua condonation of delay squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of learned Service Tribunal and no restriction whatsoever has been imposed by any law and condonation can be granted in suitable cases and question of suitability is to be assessed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal itself. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:-- 1986 SCM R 1086 1976 SCM R 262 1976 SCM R 268 1990 SCMR 1513 1990 SCMR 1519 and 1990 SCM R 1504
4. The contention that after creation of QESCO the learned Federal Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction seems to be devoid of merit as this question was never agitated before the learned Federal Service Tribunal and now it is too late in the day to resolve such academic question which otherwise would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case.
5. We have also adverted to the plea that major penalty of compulsory retirement as imposed by the competent authority was in accordance with law and it could not have been reversed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal seems to be devoid of merit because Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC on behalf of petitioners was asked pointedly that as to whether any incriminating material was available qua receiving of an amount of Rs, 60,000/- as illegal gratification for installation of 25 KVA Transformer but no incriminating evidence or material could be pointed out on the basis whereof the major penalty of compulsory retirement could be justified.
It may be pointed out that heinousness or gravity of accusation caries a little importance unless substantiated by cogent and concrete evidence which is absolutely lacking in this case. It is observed with grave concern that all the proceedings have been conducted in haphazard, careless and highly irresponsible manner which speaks of malamutes and depicts inefficiency and lack of knowledge of the concerned authorities regarding services laws. It is astonishing that at a first occasion the Office Order dated 28.05.2001 regarding the dismissal order of respondent was withdrawn and he was reinstated in service. Fresh show cause notice thereafter was issued on 31.7.2001 on the same grounds and once again minor penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed. It is not understandable as to how the respondent was promoted from LS-II to LS-I when various serious charges were leveled against him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti could not explain that as to how and under what authority various disciplinary actions were taken on different occasions after one another and order passed were either reversed or reviewed by the competent authority without having gone through the entire record and diligent application of mind which speaks a volume about the good governance of QESCO. No infirmity or illegality could be pointed out in the judgment impugned which being unexceptionable does not warrant interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.