' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 20-3-2008, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi (Tribunal), whereby his service appeal (Appeal No,129(K)CS/2000) was rejected.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, when he was working as Member of the Audit party conducting annual audit of the office of Director General (Food), Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock at Karachi. He was served with letter of explanation dated 29-8-1998. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. He was served with charge sheet dated 24-9- 1998 along with statement of allegations. The competent authority appointed Assistant Director as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was issued show-causenotice, which was replied by him; petitioner was provided opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter the competent authority imposed minor penalty of withholding of two increments upon the petitioner, vide order dated 30-10-1999.
The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal through service appeal (Appeal No,129(K)CS/2000) which was rejected by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20-3-2008, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Director of Audit, who issued the show- cause-notice to the petitioner and consequently imposed minor penalty, was not competent in law either to issue show-cause notice or to impose penalty upon the petitioner, as he was an officer of BS-19.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. The learned Tribunal in para 8 of the impugned judgment has dealt with the said argument of the learned counsel and has rightly held that the substantive grade of the appellant is BS-16, therefore, the Director of Audit was competent to issue show-cause notice. Today the departmental representative has produced in Court notification No,S.R.O. 429(1)/98 dated 30-4-1998, showing the officers to be the authority/authorized officers competent to take action against the government servants. Relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below-- {{TABLE}} Sr.No,
(1) Government Servants
(2) Authority (3) Authorized Officer (4)
3 Government servants holding posts in Basic Pay Scale 3 to 16 or equivalent. Head of the attached department or Head of the subordinate office. An officer, of the department or officer not below BS-19 designated by the authority specified in column (3). {{TABLE}} It is evident from the above that an officer not below BS-19, designated as the authorized officer, is competent to pass orders in respect of government servants holding post in pay scale 3 to 16.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the Director of Audit, who issued the show- cause notice and passed the dismissal order, was an officer not below BS-19. In view of clause 3 above an officer not below BS-19 was authorized to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner and was designated competent authority in the case of the petitioner. In view whereof, the solitary contention raised by learned counsel has no force.
5. No question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is involved in this case. No case for the grant of leave to appeal is made out.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merits thus stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.