Qazi Khalid Ali, Chairman.-- The appellant, who is an employee of Military Accountant General (Respondent No. 1) has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, against the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 whereby appellant was dismissed from service. He preferred departm ental appeal dated 31.07.2019 which remained un-responded. He prayed for reinstatement in service.
2. The brief facts for disposal of the above appeal are that NAB, Sukkur has conducted inquiry/investigation for embezzlement and corruption of Rs. 3,26,545/-. During the proceedings of inquiry and detention, the appellant entered into Plea Bargain .with the NAB in accordance with Section 25 read with Section-15 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which was accepted by the Accountability Court, Sukkur on 12.10.2017 in Reference No. 06/2016 titled as State v. Muhammad Arif Teevno and others under Section 25(b) NAO, 1999 and which lead to the dismissal of appellant from service vide order dated 10.07.2019. The appellant preferred departmental appeal dated 31.07.2019 which remained un-replied, thereafter , he filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The respondents filed parawise comme nts/preliminary objections and resisted the appeal on the ground that the dismissal order and major penalty was imposed upon the appellant on the basis of his admission and entering into Plea Bargain. Copies of the record was also filed alongwith the comments.
4. The appellant appeared in person and argued that there was an allegation of corruption in the tune of Rs.
3,26,545/- only against him. As the appellant remained in the jail and his wife was suffering with female disease supposed to be fell in cancer, therefore, she was needing and seeking help of the appellant being her husband; hence, the appellant who was also suffering from sugar could not live in the jail and having contention of innocence, applied for Plea Bargaining mostly under the compulsion of his wife's need, as reiterated hereinabove, the Plea Bargaining application was allowed and approved by the Accountability Court vide its order dated 12.10.2017 and the appellant was released after paying alleged corruption amount of Rs. 3,26,545/- which appellant borrowed with the help of his relatives. He contended that the impugned order for his dismissal was passed against law of natural justice.
5. The learned Assistant Attorney General, on the other hand, based his arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the respondents and stated that the appellant committed offence of embezzlement and corruption. The NAB Sukkur , Sindh conducted inquiry , thereafter , finally admitted his guilt and entered into Plea Bargain and deposited his liability viz. Rs. 3,26,545/- with NAB Sukkur . Therefore, the penalty was imposed on the basis of Plea Bargain under Section-15 of the NAB Ordinance and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the appellant and the learned AAG for the respondents and perused the record minutely .
7. It is not disputed that the appellant entered into Plea Bargain with the NAB in accordance with Section 25 read with Section-15 of the NAB Ordinance which was duly approved by the NAB authorities and the Accountability Court vide its order dated 12.10.20r . The appellant contended that while imposing major penalty of dismissal upon him, he was not provided an opportunity to defend himself by the departmental authority in accordance with Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, so much so, no regular inquiry Was conducted before passing the impugned order . The contention raised by the appellant is found not to be correct interpretation of law as under the peculiar facts and circumstances, his admission is sufficient, the departmental authorities have taken action in accordance with law and there was no ground for interference in the impugned order of the departmental authorities.
8. We have been able to lay our hands to a case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad versus Mamoon Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 1154), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that regular inquiry is to be held only when there are disputed facts.
9. The arrest of appellant under charges of corruption and corrupt practices and release of appellant from custody after gaining benefit of Plea Bargain in terms of Section-25 of the National , Acco untability Ordinance, 1999, fact that amount in question was got deposited not by the appellant himself but his family , would not help case of appellant in any way. If appellant, as per his claim, was not beneficiary of Plea Bargain, he could have challenged the same before any Court of Law or at best to Chairman, NAB denying Plea Bargain but he kept silent till today and now raising the technical ground of non-holding the departmental inquiry before passing the impugned order . It is settled principle of law of administration of justice that technicalities would be avoided and the matter may be decided on merits.
10. This brings us to the merit of the case. On merit, the appellant has no case. On perusal of record right from arrest of the appellant till his release after acceptance of Plea Bargain application, the order of learned Accountability Court shows his active acquiescence by conduct in plea of bargaining. Appellant, thus, could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath. Acceptance and availing the benefit of Plea Bargain under Section-25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, would be deemed to have been convicted for offence under Section 15 NAO, 1999 and by operation of law he ceased to hold his office held by him. We have also observed that no exception or reservation was expressed by the appellant when produced in learned Accountability Court. The learned Accountability Court's order dated 12.10.2017 would show that appellant was specifically informed that approval by the Court of their Plea Bargain would amount to admission of accusation and guilt which he categorically accepted and he was also informed that penal consequences as provided under the law would follow which too was accepted by him. Statutory provisions of law on the subject takes its own effect which cannot be made subject to consent of accused or approval of Plea Bargain by Court and thus, consequences of Statute would follow being mandatory in nature.
11. We have also been able to lay our hands on the recent judgment dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2020 titled as Secretary Ministry of Information Technology Islamabad and others v. Tahir Atique Siddiqui wherein the respondent was employed in Telephone Industries of Pakistan Limited as Deputy General Manager . He was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.12.2014 on the ground that vide a judgment rendered by Accountability Court No. 1, Islamabad on 27.11.2014 in Reference no. 15/2013 IBD titled State v. Azad Bakht and others . He was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rupees Five Million. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 4917/2014 in Islamabad High Court, where vide order dated 12.05.2015, the sentence was suspended. In this judgment, in para- 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "3. We note that applicability of the principles of natural justice though is a universal one but in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand the law has provided its own mechanism for dealing with cases in which the accused persons are convicted and sentenced under the Ordinance consequences of which have been provided in Section 15 thereof according to which where the accused is holder of a public office he shall immediately cease to be remain in such office. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that no ground for grant of personal hearing was available to the petitioner nor has any law in this respect been cited before us. The learned counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that Article 10-A of the Constitution provides for dealing with the cases in due process. We note that before the Accountability Court the Respondent has been provided due process of law and the learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the same. Even suspension of the sentence is of no help to the Respondent as the sentence is suspended but the conviction remains in the field and once conviction remains in the field the mandate of Section 15 of the Ordinance continues to occupy the field. In this view of-the matter , we find that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law on the subject and is thus unsustainable."
12. The fact that the appellant entered into Plea Bargain with NAB and paid the misappropriated amount voluntarily is admission of the offence which is misconduct for commission and omission committed by him. The major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him is in accordance with law .
13. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of force with no order as to costs.
14. Parties may be informed accordingly .