' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 25-1-2010, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Service Appeal of the appellant against the penalty of his removal from service was dismissed.
2. The 'appellant was a BS-18 Officer of the Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service. Initially while serving as Divisional Accounts Officer, Rawalpindi, he was charge sheeted on 11-2-2000 along with statement of allegations under the provisions of Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973.
At a later stage, he was arrested by the NAB authorities in Reference No,104 of 2004 filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Islamabad, inter alia, on the charge that while serving as Divisional Accounts Officer, Rawalpindi, he committed irregularities and corruption. He moved an application before the Accountability Court No,II, Rawalpindi, to enter into plea bargain with the NAB authorities.
The Chairman NAB, approved the plea bargain of the appellant art accordingly the Accountability Court vide order dated 4-4-2005, accepted his plea bargain and released him under section 25(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance): It was ordered by the Accountability Court that the appellant shall be deemed to have been convicted under the proviso to subsection (a) of section 15 of the Ordinance and shall cease to hold public office forthwith.
3. The Chairman NAB through his letter informed the Office of the Auditor-General of Pakistan that the appellant has entered into plea bargain under section 25(b) read with section 15 of the Ordinance and availing of such option implies that the appellant is deemed to be convicted under the Ordinance and shall cease to hold public office forthwith. Accordingly, the Auditor-General of Pakistan served the appellant with a Show-Cause Notice dated 16-9-2005, in terms of sections 3 and 5(5) of the Removal of Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice which was found not satisfactory. However, the appellant was removed from service vide notification dated 5-1-2006. He filed departmental appeal which was not responded to, therefore, he preferred service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed by impugned judgment. The appellant filed Civil Petition before this Court when on 1-2-2011, leave was granted in the following terms:-- "The petitioner, after entering into plea bargaining in a corruption case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was issued a show cause notice and without holding an inquiry on the basis of the aforesaid plea bargaining, he was awarded punishment as provided under section 5(5) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. According to section 15 of the National Accountability Ordinance, it is the conviction under section 9 which disqualify a person to hold a public office and not the plea bargaining. Since section 15 of the Ordinance provides for disqualification for holding a public office it does not envisage that a person who enters into. a plea bargaining would also be disqualified as section refers to only conviction. The points involved in the case justify the grant of leave, therefore, leave to appeal is granted to consider the aforesaid points."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant and he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself He next contended that the appellant can only be disqualified if he is convicted for committing any of the offences mentioned under section 9 of the Ordinance.
5, As against this, the learned Deputy Attorney-General supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard the learned counsel as well as the learned Law Officer and have perused the record. Section 25 of the. Ordinance deals with voluntary return of assets and plea bargain.
Subsection (a) of section 25 is applicable in cases if a holder of public office or any other person prior to authorization of investigation against him voluntarily comes forward and offers to return the assets/gains acquired by him in the course or as a consequence of any offence under the Ordinance. The Chairman NAB, under the aforesaid subsection is competent to accept an offer of the nature referred to hereinabove and on acceptance of such offer, he in law, is mandated to discharge such person of all his liabilities in respect of the matter or transaction in issue. This subsection, however, excludes the authority of the Chairman NAB in case if the matter is sub judice in any court of law.
7. Subsection (b) of section 25 authorizes the Chairman NAB to accept an offer of the accused person to return to NAB assets or gains acquired or made by him in the course or as consequence of any offence under this Ordinance at any time, after authorization of investigation, before or after the commencement of the trial or during pendency of the appeal. The subsection, however, curtails the power of the Chairman NAB to accept the offer without seeking "approval of the court of competent jurisdiction. The case of the appellant is regulated by subsection (b) of section 25 of the Ordinance, as he entered into plea bargain during pendency of the trial, which was accepted by the Chairman NAB on the terms contained therein and such acceptance was approved by the concerned Court of NAB, which ordered his release in terms of subsection (b) of section 25 of the Ordinance. The consequence of such order of the NAB Court is provided under proviso to subsection (a) of section 15 of the Ordinance which provides that on approval of the plea bargain in tenors of section 25(b) of the Ordinance, the accused, stands disqualified for a period of ten years from holding any public office.
8. The counsel for the appellant in the first place has contended that no regular inquiry was conducted in the case of the appellant and he was removed frond service after issuance of show cause notice. The appellant has not disputed the factum of entering into plea bargain, which was documented as a matter of record. In such like cases where the documents on the basis of which departmental proceedings have been initiated are not in dispute, the competent authority can dispense with the regular inquiry, as no material is required to be collected for proceeding against the delinquent officer. Likewise, the appellant cannot take a plea that he was deprived of opportunity to rebut the charge when the documents on the basis of which departmental proceedings are initiated against the appellant have not been denied.
9. The law has provided the penalty in the nature of disqualification on entering into plea bargain. It is not in dispute that the plea bargain was entered into and accepted by the Chairman NAB and the NAB Court accorded approval in terms of section 25(b) of the Ordinance and ordered release of the appellant. As a consequence of the approval, it entails the penalty in terms of proviso to subsection (a) of section 15 of the Ordinance, by which the appellant stood disqualified.
10. We, for the aforesaid reasons, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, which could warrant interference by this Court. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.